Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  witii  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.arcliive.org/details/fragmentsofdebatOOshamiala 


FRAGMENTS   OF  THE   DEBATES 

OF   THE 

IOWA 

CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTIONS 

OF  1844  AND  1846 

At.ONG   WITH 

PRESS  COMMENTS  AND  OTHER  MATERIALS 

ON    THE 

CONSTITUTIONS  OF  1844  AND  1846 


COMPILED  AND  EDITED 

BY 

BENJAMIN   F.  SHAMBAUGH,  A.M.,  Ph.D. 

PROFESSOR  OF  GOVERNMENT  AND  ADMINISTRATION 
IN   THE   UNIVERSITY   OF   IOWA 


PUB1,ISHED    BY 

THE   STATE  HISTORICAI,   SOCIETY   OF   IOWA 

IOWA  CITY,   IOWA 

1900 


PREFACE. 

Apart  from  a  bare  journal  of  proceedings,  the  early 
constitution-makers  of  Iowa — I  mean  the  members  of  the 
Constitutional  Conventions  of  1844  and  1846 — did  not  keep 
and  preserve  official  records  of  their  deliberations.  This 
has  always  been  a  matter  of  regret,  especially  to  students 
of  our  Constitutional  History  and  Constitutional  Law. 

Nor  has  there  up  to  this  day  appeared  a  "Madison's 
Journal "  of  these  Iowa  Constitutional  Conventions.  In- 
deed it  is  not  probable  that  any  member  kept  a  private 
journal  of  the  debates. 

And  so  the  only  reports  of  the  debates  of  the  Conven- 
tion of  1844  ^^^  ^^^  Convention  of  1846  thus  far  discovered 
are  the  fragments  that  appeared  in  the  newspapers  of  the 
time.     But  these  are  priceless  fragments. 

In  order  to  make  the  material  more  generally  available 
to  those  interested  in  the  history  of  Iowa,  I  have  reprinted 
in  this  volume:  (I)  the  fragments  of  the  debates  of  the 
Constitutional  Convention  of  1844,  as  preserved  in  T/ie 
Iowa  Standard  and  The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter;  (II)  some 
press  comments  and  other  materials  relative  to  the  Constitu- 
tion of  1844,  as  found  in  The  Iowa  Standard  dXi^  The  Iowa 
Capital  Reporter;  (III)  fragments  of  the  debates  of  the 
Constitutional  Convention  of  1846,  as  preserved  in  The  Iowa 
Capital  Reporter;  (IV)  some  press  comments  and  other 
materials  relative  to  the  Constitution  of  1846,  as  found  in 
The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter,  The  Iowa  Standard  and    The 


iv  Preface. 

Bloomington  Herald.  The  appendices  contain  data  relative 
to  the  members  of  the  two  Conventions. 

A  word  concerning  the  newspapers  from  which  the 
materials  are  reprinted.  The  Iowa  Standard  was  a  weekly 
paper  published  at  Iowa  City,  the  Capital  of  the  Territory. 
It  was  an  organ  of  the  Whig  party.  The  Iowa  Cafital 
Reporter  was  likewise  a  weekly  published  at  the  Capital, 
but  represented  the  Democratic  party.  The  Bloomington 
Herald  was  a  Whig  weekly  published  at  Bloomington 
(now  Muscatine). 

Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  the  following  pages  contain  the 
data  relative  to  the  Constitutions  of  1844  and  1846  from 
both  Whig  and  Democratic  sources.  It  is  a  matter  of 
regret  that  during  the  session  of  the  Convention  of  1846 
The  Iowa  Standard  had  temporarily  suspended  publication. 
This  accounts  in  part  for  the  meager  reports  of  the  debates 
of  the  Convention  of  1846. 

In  editing  the  material  for  this  volume  I  have  as  far  as 
possible  followed  the  originals  literally.  Errors  in  spelling, 
sentence  construction,  punctuation,  etc.,  have  been  repro- 
duced in  the  reprint.  I  have  even  gone  so  far  as  to  reprint 
typographical  errors.  Nor  does  this  imply  that  such  errors 
are  important  and  should,  therefore,  be  carefully  preserved. 
It  simply  means  that  in  a  work  of  this  kind  the  critical 
reader  prefers  as  a  rule  to  have  the  material  reprinted 
literally  and  without  editorial  revision.  For  when  one 
begins  to  tamper  with  historical  documents  one  is  apt  to 
end  in  distorting  them.  It  seems  best  therefore  to  let  the 
reader  make  his  own  corrections  and  allowances. 

University  of  Iowa,  ^  p    Shambaugh. 

January y  igoo. 


^  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

J  ^  SANTA  BARBARA  COi^LEGE  LIBR 


CONTENTS. 

Preface,  ....  .  .         .         .         iii 

I. 
Debates  of  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  1844. 

Fragments  from    The  Iowa  Standard,       .         .         3 
Fragments  fro7n    The  loiva  Capital  Reporter,       171 

II. 
Press  Comments  and  Other  Materials  Relative  to  the 

Constitution  of  1844,  ...  .  .     205 

III. 
Debates  of  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  1846. 

Fragments  from    The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter,       317 

IV. 
Press  Comments  and  Other  Materials  Relative  to  the 

Constitution  of  1846,  .....     333 

APPENDIX  A. 
Data  Relative  to  the  Members  of  the  Convention  of  1844. 

APPENDIX  B. 
Data  Relative  to  the  Members  of  the  Convention  of  1846. 


I. 

DEBATES 

OF    THE 

CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION 

OP 
1844 


Fragments  from  The  Iowa  Standard 


ANNOUNCEMENT. 


For  information,  we  will  state  that  it  is  our  intention  to 
furnish  a  synopsis  of  all  business  of  importance  that  may 
be  transacted  in  the  Convention,  together  with  a  sketch  of 
any  debates  that  may  arise.  We  will  also,  in  cases  where 
it  is  desired,  publish  one  speech  upon  each  side  of  any 
question — members  writing  out  their  own  remarks. 

— Reprinted  from  The  Iowa  Standard,  Vol.  IV.  No.  41, 
Oct.  loth,  1844. 

OUR  REPORTS. 

We  have  included  in  our  paper  of  today  as  much  of  the 
proceedings  of  the  Convention  as  it  was  possible  to  do,  and 
carry  out  the  design  of  giving  a  sketch  of  what  was  said 
upon  questions  of  interest.  Our  reports  are  got  up  under 
considerable  disadvantage,  and  necessarily  present  but  a 
meagre  exhibit  of  what  is  transpiring  among  seventy  men, 
zealously  occupied  during  six  hours  in  the  day  in  transact- 
ing business  of  so  high  importance  as  the  formation  of  a 
Constitution.  We  have,  nevertheless,  endeavored  to  make 
as  perfect  a  representation  as  possible ; — if  the  reports  come 
short  of  doing  justice  to  any,  we  trust  they  will  attribute  it 
to  any  motive  but  a  desire  to  misrepresent. 

— Reprinted  from  The  lozva  Standard,  Vol.  IV.  No.  42, 
Oct.  17th,  1844. 


PROCEEDINGS 


OF 


THE  CONVENTION  OF  1844. 


Monday,  Oct.  7,  '44. 

Pursuant  to  law,  the  Convention  to  form  a  Constitution 
for  the  future  State  of  Iowa,  assembled  in  this  city,  on 
Monday  the  7th  of  October. 

It  organized  at  two  o'clock  in  the  afternoon,  by  calling 
Gen.  R.  P.  Lowe,  of  Muscatine  county,  to  the  chair,  and 
appointing  Jas.  W.  Woods,  of  Burlington,  Secretary,  -pro 
tempore. 

Rev.  Mr.  Snethen,  by  request  of  the  Convention,  opened 
it  with  prayer.  The  roll  of  the  counties  was  then  called, 
and  66  of  the  73  members  chosen,  handed  in  their  creden- 
tials, or  otherwise  reported  themselves.  Mr.  Felkner,  of 
Johnson,  Mr.  Cook,  of  Scott,  Messrs.  Campbell  and  Ross, 
of  Washington,  Mr.  Hoag,  of  Henry,  Mr.  Morton,  of  Van 
Buren^,  and  Mr.  Whitmore,  of  Jefferson,  were  absent. 
After  appointing  two  or  three  committees,  the  Convention 
adjourned. 

1  Mr.  Morton  seems  to  have  been  permanently  absent  from  the  Conven- 
tion. His  name  does  not  appear  among  the  signers  of  the  Constitution  of 
1844. 


8  Convention  of  iS^/f. 

Tuesday,  Oct.  8,  '44. 

The  absent  members  from  Washington  appeared  in  their 
seats  on  Tuesday  morning. 

The  only  business  transacted  on  Tuesday,  was  the  elec- 
tion of  officers,  adoption  of  rules,  and  the  consideration  of 
a  few  prehminary  motions.  Hon.  Shepherd  Leffler,  of  Des 
Moines  county,  was  unanimously  elected  President  of  the 
Convention. 

Geo.  S.  Hampton,  Esq.^  of  this  city  was  then  elected 
Secretary  of  the  Convention,  and  Alex.  D.  Anderson,  of 
Dubuque,  Assistant  Secretary.  Warren  Dodd,  of  Lee 
county,  was  elected  Sergeant-at-Arms,  and  Ephraim  Mc- 
Bride,  of  Van  Buren,  Door  Keeper. 

The  report  on  rules  made  by  the  committee  appointed 
for  that  purpose  was  then  taken  up,  slightly  amended,  and 
adopted. 

The  Convention  held  an  afternoon  session,  at  which  a 
proposition  was  brought  forward  by  Mr.  Hall,  of  Henry, 
to  authorize  the  members  to  take  papers.  After  discussion, 
it  was  negatived — 27  for,  40  against.  No  other  business  of 
importance  was  transacted. 

*  Mr.  Hampton  was  not  technrcally  a  member  of  the  Convention.  He  was 
not  elected  as  were  the  other  members.  His  presence  in  the  Convention 
was  due,  therefore,  to  a  vote  of  the  Convention.  However,  as  Secretary  of 
the  Convention,  his  name  appears  among  the  signers  of  the  Constitution. 
In  this  connection  it  may  be  observed  that  the  Constitution  was  signed  by 
72  members  and  the  Secretary.  This  fact  has  led  to  the  supposition  that 
the  Constitution  of  1844  was  signed  by  every  member  elected  to  the  Con- 
vention— that  number  being  73.  This  supposition,  however,  is  false,  since 
one  of  the  signers  (i.  e.  the  Secretary)  was  not  a  member.  The  member 
whose  name  does  not  appear  among  the  signers  was  Mr.  Morton,  of  Van 
Buren. 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  9 

Wednesday,  Oct.  9,  '44. 

Messrs.  Cook,  Whitmore  and  Felkner  appeared,  pre- 
sented their  credentials  and  took  their  seats. 

The  President  announced  the  following  Standing  Com- 
mittees, appointed  to  prepare  articles  for  the  Constitution, 
by  virtue  of  the  rules  adopted  on  yesterday : 

ist.  On  the  Bill  of  Rights — Messrs.  Grant,  Hepner,  De- 
lashmutt,  Langworthy,  Hawkins,  Benedict,  Blankenship. 

2d.  Executive  Departtnent — Messrs.  Lucas,  Lowe  of 
Des  Moines,  Campbell,  of  Washington,  Bailey,  Shelleday, 
Galland,  Evans. 

3d.  Legislative Dej>artment — Lowe  of  Muscatine,  Chap- 
man, Hooten,  Toole,  Hall,  Mills,  Murray. 

4th.  fiidicial  Department — Hall,  Grant,  Clark,  Hemp- 
stead, Shelleday,  Fletcher,  Campbell  of  Scott. 

5th.  On  Suffrage  and  Citizenship — Clark,  Thompson, 
Cutler,  Cook,  Ross  of  Washington,  Bulter,  Olmstead. 

6th.  Education  and  School  Lands — Bailey,  Ross  of  Jef- 
ferson, Brookbank,  Kirkpatrick,  Randolph,  Marsh,  Mc- 
Crory,  Davidson,  Mordan. 

7th.  On  Incorporations — Hempstead,  Harrison,  Gower, 
Lowe  of  Muscatine,  Hepner,Williams,  O'Brien,  Hale,  Price. 

8th.  State  Boundaries  —  Chapman,  Lucas,  Ferguson, 
Fletcher,  McAtee,  Toole,  Ripley,  Charleton,  Salmon. 

9th.  County  Organization — Hawkins,  Thompson,  Gal- 
braith,  Gehon,  Wright,  Bratton,  Wychoff. 

loth.  On  Internal  Improvements — Langworthy,  Robin- 
son, Quinton,  Strong,  Kerr,  Staley,  Taylor. 

nth.  On  State  Debts — Peck,  Bissell,  Brown,  Crawford, 
Hobson,  McKean,  Durham. 

Mr.  Clark  offered  a  resolution  (which  was  adopted,)  that 
the  following  additional  Standing  Committees  be  appointed: 

On  the  Militia  Sy stein; 

On  Amendments  to  the  Constitution; 

On  the  Schedule. 


lo  Convention  of  18^4. 

Mr.  Evans  moved  to  reconsider  the  vote  of  yesterday, 
by  which  the  Convention  refused  to  take  papers. 

Mr.  Lucas  opposed  it;  the  Convention  had  no  right  to 
take  papers.     It  was  a  legislative  act. 

Mr.  Hall  lived  in  a  back  county,  where  no  paper  was 
printed,  and  he  was  too  poor  to  pay  for  papers  himself. 

Mr.  Hempstead's  constituents  desired  papers  to  be  sent; 
he  promised  to  do  so.  It  was  the  only  way  in  which  they 
could  be  satisfactorily  informed  concerning  the  acts  of 
members. 

Mr.  Hawkins  was  opposed.  The  people  were  to  decide 
upon  the  Constitution  when  it  was  formed.  They  would 
not  be  affected  by  the  vote  of  any  individual,  for  or  against 
any  particular  principle.  All  the  papers  in  the  Territory 
were  requested  to  publish  the  Constitution  until  the  election 
in  April. 

Motion  was  lost;  yeas  29,  nays  38. 

Mr.  Sells  offered  a  resolution  that  the  Convention  be 
opened  by  prayer  every  morning.     Laid  on  the  table. 

Mr.  Gower  offered  a  resolution  for  the  appointment  of  a 
committee  to  prepare  an  article  upon  the  subject  of  Prisons. 
Laid  over,  and  the  Convention  adjourned. 


[EDITORIAL.] 

Not  being  able  to  insert  this  week  the  reports  of  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  Convention  on  Tuesday  and  Wednesday,  we 
will  mention  the  heads  of  the  business  acted  upon  on  those 
days.  Mr.  Hall's  Dorr  amendment  was  proposed  in  the 
Convention,  and  defeated  —  only  14  voting  for  it.  Mr. 
O'Brien  proposed  that  foreigners  3  years  resident,  and 
who  had  declared  their  intentions,  should  be  admitted  to 
vote  for  representatives  and  county  officers;  which  was  de- 
feated— ^yeas  29,  nays  39.     The  amendments  to  the  Bill  of 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  ii 

Rights  having  been  gone  through  with,  it  was  ordered  to 
be  engrossed,  and  a  copy  may  be  found  in  our  paper  to- 
day. The  term  of  office  of  the  Governor  was  fixed  at  two 
years,  and  the  Secretary  of  State  made  elective  by  the 
people.  The  report  of  the  Committee  on  State  Debts, 
imposing  restrictions,  and  making  it  necessary  to  submit  to 
the  people  projects  that  would  cause  indebtedness,  was 
considered,  and  ordered  to  be  read  a  third  time.  Residence 
before  being  admitted  to  vote,  was  fixed  at  six  months — 
voting  to  be  by  ballot,  The  Committee  on  the  Legislative 
Department  has  reported  in  favor  of  biennial  Legislatures 
— members  to  be  paid  $2  a  day  for  30  days,  and  $1  after- 
wards. Mr.  Hall,  from  the  Committee  upon  the  petition 
asking  that  the  rights  of  citizenship  be  granted  to  colored 
persons,  made  a  report  against  such  a  grant. 


Thursday,  Oct.  10,  1844. 

Mr.  Chapman  introduced  a  resolution  for  the  establish- 
ment of  Courts  in  each  county  of  the  State,  to  be  composed 
of  the  justices  of  the  townships,  which  courts  shall  transact 
all  county  and  probate  business,  to  hold  sessions  at  stated 
periods,  without  additional  compensation.  Also,  that  all 
roads  laid  out  by  special  act  of  the  Legislature  shall  be  at 
the  expense  of  the  State. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Lucas,  a  committee  on  Revenue  was 
ordered. 

Mr.  Chapman,  from  the  Committee  on  State  Boundaries; 
Mr.  Peck,  from  Committee  on  State  Debts;  and  Mr.  Grant, 
from  Committee  on  Bill  of  Rights;  severally  made  reports, 
which  will  be  noticed  hereafter. 

The  Convention  took  up  Mr.  Sells'  motion  to  have  daily 
prayer. 

Mr.  Chapman  spoke  in  favor  of  the  resolution,  stating 


12  Convention  of  184.4. 

that  no  outlay  would  be  occasioned,  as  the  ministers  would 
gladly  attend  and  render  the  service  without  compensation. 

Mr.  Gehon  said  it  would  not  be  economical,  for  the 
Convention  sat  at  an  expense  of  $200  to  $300  per  day,  and 
time  was  money. 

Mr.  Hall  moved  an  amendment  to  the  resolution,  that  the 
exercise  of  prayer  commence  half  hour  before  the  hour 
for  Convention  to  meet. 

Mr.  Chapman  said  if  passed  with  such  a  provision  as  that, 
the  resolution  would  be  an  insult  to  those  who  believed  in 
the  superintendence  of  Almighty  God,  and  desired  his  aid 
to  be  invoked  in  behalf  of  the  Convention. 

Mr.  Kirkpatrick  opposed  the  resolution,  because  the 
religion  of  Christ  was  a  religion  of  peace  and  persuasion, 
and  acknowledged  no  compulsion,  save  moral.  To  pass  a 
resolution  to  have  prayers  was  compelling  men  to  listen  to 
what  they  were  opposed  to,  and  violated  one  of  the  inalien- 
able rights  of  men. 


Remarks  of  Mr.  Kirkpatrick,  on  the  resolution  requiring- 
the  Convention  to  be  opened  with  prayer. 

Mr.  Kirkpatrick  remarked,  by  way  of  illustration,  that 
the  members  of  this  Convention  had  come  here  from  every 
part  of  the  Territory,  and  had  brought  with  them  their 
natural  rights.  We  had  equally  a  right  to  the  atmosphere 
we  breathe,  and  to  the  sun's  rays  that  fall  upon  us.  In  a 
word,  we  had  a  right  to  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of 
happiness;  a  right  to  worship  God  in  our  own  way;  but 
there  was  another  right  arising  from  the  nature  of  the 
social  compact.  In  order  that  we  might  proceed  with 
decorum,  there  must,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  be  rules 
adopted  for  the  government  of  the  Convention,  and  by 
the  adoption  of  these  rules,  we  create  this  second  right, 
which  is  termed  the  adventitious  right.     This  right  is  only 


Fragments  from   The  loiva  Standard,  13 

exercised  in  its  legitimate  sphere.  Then  it  is  used  to  gov- 
ern the  social  compact  in  all  business  which  shall  come 
before  them,  and  in  actions  or  transactions  between  man  and 
man;  but  can  never  be  used  to  enforce  a  moral  precept, 
when  the  action  is  performed  in  reference  to  the  Great 
Supreme.  The  action  performed  in  obedience  to  a  moral 
precept,  in  order  to  be  valid,  must,  in  the  nature  of  the  case, 
be  voluntary,  otherwise  it  is  not  virtuous.  Prayer  is  a 
moral  precept. 

Now  we  cannot  enforce  a  moral  precept  by  this  adventi- 
tious right,  from  the  fact,  that  to  do  so,  would  be  first,  to 
render  the  action  not  valid,  because  it  is  brought  about  by 
the  adventitious  coercion  of  proceedings;  and  secondly, 
because  by  enforcing  this  moral  duty,  we  violate  or  infringe 
our  natural  rights.  These  rights  are  inalienable,  and  we 
have  not  yielded  them  to  the  social  compact. — And  shall 
we  make  this  moral  duty  one  of  the  rules  of  this  Convention  ? 
If  by  the  action  of  this  compact,  we  can  enforce  this  moral 
obligation,  then  we  have  a  right,  upon  the  same  principle, 
to  enforce  other  religious  duties,  and  to  make  every  mem- 
ber of  this  Convention  go  upon  his  knees  five  times  a  day; 
but  there  would  be  no  volition  on  the  part  of  individuals; 
consequently  they  would  be  no  more  pious  by  it. 

Now,  sir,  this  Convention,  (as  a  figure  by  way  of  illustra- 
tion,) if  we  have  a  right  to  enforce  moral  duties  here,  we 
have  a  right  by  the  authority  of  our  social  compact,  as  a 
State,  to  enforce  the  observance  of  religous  duties,  and  to 
make  every  man  in  the  State  fall  upon  his  knees  fifty  times 
a  day;  and  if  we  violate  this  general  principle,  we  may 
retrograde,  step  by  step,  until  we  get  back  to  the  policy 
and  customs  of  our  forefathers,  on  the  eastern  side  of  the 
Atlantic,  where  tyrants  wield  despotic  sway,  and  liberty 
never  had  a  name.^ 

1  These  remarks  appear  in  The  Iowa  Standard  of  Oct.  31, 1844,  first  page. 


14  Convention  of  1844. 

Mr.  Sells  did  not  expect  the  resolution  to  meet  with 
opposition,  and  should  regret  to  have  it  said  of  Iowa  that 
she  had  so  far  travelled  out  of  Christendom  as  to  deny  the 
duty  of  prayer. 

Mr.  Lucas  regretted  that  there  should  be  contention  on 
this  subject,  and  could  not  believe  that  any  disbelieved  in 
a  superintending  Providence.  If  ever  an  assemblage  needed 
the  aid  of  Almighty  Power,  it  was  one  to  organize  a  system 
of  Government.  He  was  surprised  at  the  expression  of  his 
friend  from  Dubuque  [Mr.  Gehon]  that  we  had  not  time  to 
spend  a  few  moments  in  prayer  for  divine  direction.  Mr. 
L.  referred  to  precedents  of  similar  practice  in  other 
assemblages. 

Mr.  Kirkpatrick  said  if  precedent  was  to  be  followed,  we 
should  go  back  to  aristocracy.  This  was  a  day  of  improve- 
ment. Let  those  who  believed  so  much  in  prayer,  pray  at 
home.     Public  prayer  was  too  ostentatious. 

Mr.  Hooten  was  opposed  to  Mr.  Hall's  amendment,  and 
wanted  to  meet  the  question  on  its  true  merits.  If  a  majority 
were  for  the  prayers,  have  them;  but  hoped  those  who 
were  in  favor  would  not  press  it  at  the  expense  of  the  feel- 
ing of  others. 

Mr.  Hall  said  he  did  not  offer  his  amendment  through 
levity,  but  because  he  believed  it  right.  In  the  morning, 
if  some  were  absent,  the  Sergeant-at-Arms  might  be  sent 
after  them,  they  be  compelled  to  attend  upon  what  they 
were  opposed  to.  If  any  refused  to  come,  it  would  be  told 
to  their  constituents,  and  political  capital  made  of  it.  We 
were  to  have  prayers  not  for  the  benefit  they  would  do  us, 
but  to  make  the  world  think  we  were  better  than  we  were. 
He  was  opposed  to  that.  Let  those  who  prayed,  enter  into 
their  closets.  Prayers  were  introduced  at  political  mass- 
meetings  which  ended  in  rows  and  riots.  If  prayer  was 
had  in  accordance  with  his  amendment,  the  President  could 
invite  some  one  for  that  purpose,  and  there  would  be  no 
interference. 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  15 

Mr.  Kirkpatrick  said  if  the  Convention  had  a  right  to 
pass  the  resolution,  they  had  a  right  to  establish  a  religion. 
It  had  no  right  to  bring  the  members  on  their  knees  every 
morning.  If  it  had,  it  might  do  it  noon  and  night;  and  had 
a  right  to  require  the  people  of  the  Territory  to  do  the 
same.  We  do  not  require  the  others  not  to  pray,  but  they 
require  us  to. 

Mr.  Chapman  disclaimed  all  idea  of  force.  The  resolution 
was  but  a  means  of  testing  whether  we  should  have  religious 
services  or  not. 

Mr.  Bailey  said  whenever  politics  and  religion  were  min- 
gled, excitement  was  created.  When  the  motion  was  made 
to  open  the  Convention  with  prayer  the  first  day,  he  had 
no  objection.  But  to  do  it  every  day  would  cost  $200  or 
$300.  Why  not  be  economical  in  this  as  well  as  in  other 
things.  Gentlemen  who  voted  against  taking  papers,  voted 
for  this  resolution.  Were  the  people  more  interested  to 
know  the  acts  of  the  Convention,  or  to  know  that  it  was 
opened  by  prayer?  Their  constitutents  did  not  expect  such 
a  thing  to  be  introduced.  Absent  members  might  be 
brought  in  and  compelled  to  hear  what  they  were  opposed 
to.  This  was  contrary  to  the  inalienable  rights  of  man.  If 
members  did  not  feel  disposed  to  come,  it  took  away  their 
happiness,  contrary  to  the  Declaration  of  Independence  and 
the  principle  laid  down  by  Thomas  Jefferson,  the  Apostle 
of  Liberty.  If  individuals  wish  prayer,  there  were  meetings 
in  town  almost  every  night;  let  them  go  there  and  not  take 
up  the  time  of  the  Convention.  Precedent  exerted  too  much 
influence — operated  upon  the  Convention  that  formed  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States.  If  we  were  to  follow  it 
always,  we  should  hang  for  witchcraft,  and  punish  for 
rehgious  opinions.  People  were  becoming  more  liberal  in 
sentiment.  No  man  could  say  that  he  ever  opposed  another 
on  account  of  religion;  he  respected  men  who  were  sincerely 
religious;  but  he  wanted  to  have  his  own  opinions. 


l6  Convention  of  184.4, 

Mr.  Cutler  desired  the  yeas  and  nays  on  the  question. 
He  had  not  lived  a  great  while,  but  long  enough  not  to  be 
afraid  of  meeting  such  a  question  openly.  He  was  opposed 
to  the  resolution. 

Mr.  Thompson  said,  when  he  looked  at  the  system  on 
which  the  Christian  religion  was  propagated,  and  saw  the 
excitement  that  existed  in  the  Convention,  he  felt  satisfied, 
that  although  those  in  favor  of  opening  the  Convention 
with  prayer,  might  be  a  majority,  they  ought  not  to  urge 
the  point;  and  he  hoped  that  the  measure  would  be  with- 
drawn. 

Mr.  Fletcher  said,  that  having  made  the  motion  by  which 
the  Convention  was  opened  with  prayer  on  the  first  day, 
and  voted  to  take  up  this  resolution,  he  felt  bound  to  say 
something.  He  regretted  the  opposition  that  he  saw,  and 
he  was  unwilling  that  it  should  go  forth  to  the  world  that 
Iowa  refused  to  acknowledge  a  God.  He  believed  it  was 
becoming  in  the  patriot  to  appeal  to  the  Almighty  for  aid 
and  guidance.  He  was  not  a  professor,  and  probably  would 
not  be  acknowledged  as  an  evangelical  Christian,  but  he 
acknowledged  the  God  of  his  fathers,  and  was  willing  to 
supplicate  His  blessing.  He  hoped  the  resolution  would 
pass. 

Mr.  Hall  rose  to  set  his  remarks  right.  The  drift  of  the 
arguments  of  those  who  favored  the  resolution  was  to 
accuse  those  who  opposed  it  of  denying  the  existence  of  a 
God.  Opposition  was  no  evidence  of  disbelief.  He  be- 
lieved, with  the  gentleman  of  Muscatine,  in  the  God  of  his 
fathers.  But  he  thought  there  were  places  where  the 
Almighty  could  not  be  approached  in  a  proper  spirit — and 
this  was  one.  Precedent  was  invoked,  but  he  did  not 
believe  in  following  it  here.  Effect  abroad  was  what  was 
desired — not  good  here.  They  did  not  tell  us  we  were 
sinners,  and  call  upon  us  to  repent.  If  any  gentlemen 
needed  religious  instruction,  he   would  vote  to  give  it  to 


I^ragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  17 

them.  It  was  wrong  and  hypocritical  to  send  such  a  thing 
abroad  for  effect.  Men  on  all  sides  caught  this  up  for 
effect.  At  the  great  Dorr  meeting  in  R.  I.,  a  clergyman 
was  procured,  who  prayed  for  the  release  of  Dorr,  the 
election  of  Polk  and  Dallas  and  the  success  of  Democratic 
principles.  If  the  Almighty  was  a  Democrat,  he  would 
perhaps  grant  the  prayer;  if  not  a  Democrat,  he  would  not 
grant  it.  Mr.  H.  desired  to  know  what  was  to  be  prayed 
for?  He  would  pray  as  did  the  man  in  New  Orleans,  that 
God  would  "  lay  low  and  keep  dark,"  and  let  us  do  the 
business  of  the  Convention.  He  objected  to  prayers  not 
out  of  disrespect  to  religion,  but  because  he  thought  them 
inappropriate.  It  would  be  going  a  step  too  far,  and  would 
be  a  mockery.  The  amendment  he  had  offered  would  give 
those  who  desired  to  pray  the  free  use  of  the  hall  for  half 
an  hour  in  the  morning;  the  President  was  authorized  to 
invite  a  minister,  and  would  attend  to  preserve  order. 

Mr.  Evans  said  he  never  knew  prayer  to  be  any  dispar- 
agement. He  thought  the  example  of  the  Convention  that 
formed  the  Constitution  of  the  U.  S.  a  good  one  to  be  fol- 
lowed. He  did  not  believe  so  much  in  ''  progression  "  as 
to  exclude  prayer,  and  had  no  fears  of  its  leading  to  mon- 
archy. When  he  was  a  boy,  all  kinds  of  meetings  except 
political,  were  opened  with  prayer. 

Mr.  Grant. — Did  they  open  town  meetings  with  prayer? 

Mr.  Evans. — No;  but  trainings  were  so  opened.  Time 
enough  had  been  already  consumed  in  the  discussion  to 
have  had  prayers  for  a  fortnight.  He  would  be  in  favor  of 
providing  a  room  for  those  who  did  not  wish  to  hear  prayers. 

Mr.  Hepner  said  he  would  like  to  see  the  Convention  be 
consistent.  The  committee  that  reported  a  Bill  of  Rights, 
had  provided  that  no  law  should  be  enacted  to  establish  a 
religion.  None  had  opposed  that,  nor  did  he  presume  any 
body  would  oppose  it.  There  was  a  rule  of  the  Convention 
which  required  all  the  members  to  be  in  attendance  when 


i8  Convention  of  1844. 

it  was  in  session.  Suppose  some  of  the  members  attend 
somewhere  else  on  religious  service  in  the  morning,  the 
Sergeant-at-arms  might  be  sent  for  them,  and  they  be 
compelled  to  attend  here.  That  would  be  an  interference 
with  the  free  exercise  of  religion.  Mr.  H.  also  spoke  of 
the  probability  that  the  services  would,  in  the  end,  have  to 
be  paid  for,  and  cited  the  instances  of  rent  having  to  be 
paid  for  the  use  of  the  Temporary  State  House,  and  the 
$5,000  loan  from  the  Dubuque  Bank,  in  support  of  that 
opinion. — He  objected  to  the  resolution  to  have  prayers 
upon  the  principle  of  pay,  and  upon  the  principle  of  incon- 
sistency, and  should  vote  for  the  amendment. 

Mr.  Shelleday  said  he  did  not  feel  as  if  he  would  repre- 
sent correctly  the  moral  and  religious  feelings  of  his  constit- 
uents, if  he  remained  silent.  He  could  not  conceive  that 
gentlemen  were  serious  when  they  opposed  the  having  of 
prayers  upon  the  ground  of  expense.  Except  in  case  of 
Congress,  he  believed  no  charge  was  made.  He  thought 
we  should  pay  some  respect  to  precedent.  He  said  it  was 
a  matter  of  record  that  the  most  dissolute  members  of 
Congress  were  the  most  zealous  supporters  of  the  practice 
of  having  daily  prayers.  They  said  that  they  would  come 
into  the  House  with  violent  feelings,  and  prepared  to  make 
the  most  outrageous  remarks,  but  the  exercise  of  prayer 
subdued  them,  and  they  could  not  let  out  as  they  intended. 

Mr.  Sells  said  he  had  not  heard  any  reasons  to  induce 
him  to  surrender  his  resolution.  The  arguments  in  oppo- 
sition were  inconsistent.  Some  were  afraid  of  losing  religious 
liberty,  and  some  of  the  expense;  some  were  anxious  about 
their  natural  rights,  and  some  wanted  God  to  "lay  low," — 
get  out  of  the  way  altogether.  He  thought  that  if  the 
majority  desired  prayers,  it  was  their  right  to  have  them. 

Mr.  Quinton  thought  his  constituents  as  moral  as  those 
of  the  gentleman  from  Mahaska,  (Mr.  Shelleday).  He 
believed  that  the  Bible  furnished  a  rule  for  faith  and  prac- 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  19 

tice,  but  did  not  believe  praying  would  change  the  pur- 
poses of  Deity,  nor  the  views  of  members  of  the  Convention. 
In  the  name  of  Heaven,  don't  force  men  to  hear  prayers. 
He  believed  in  religion,  but  did  not  want  to  force  mem- 
bers to  hear  what  they  did  not  believe  in.  He  was  in 
favor  of  those  who  wanted  to  pray,  meeting  half  an  hour 
before  the  Convention,  and  doing  it. 

Mr.  Lowe,  of  Muscatine,  said  he  had  not  intended  to 
have  said  anything  in  this  discussion,  he  did  not  think  its 
continuation  would  be  profitable;  but  he  had  concluded  to 
say  one  word.  He  considered  that  the  amendment  did  not 
fairly  meet  the  question — it  was  skulking  it — it  was  a  direct 
attempt  to  defeat  the  resolution,  and  was  unworthy  of  the 
gentleman  who  introduced  it.  It  was  in  the  line  of  safe 
precedents  to  pass  this  resolution  as  it  originally  stood,  and  a 
refusal  to  pass  it  would  be  an  imputation  upon  the  House — 
one  that  he  hoped  would  not  be  permitted.  He  said  that 
religion  had  taken  a  deep  hold  in  this  country,  and  the  time 
would  soon  come  when  men  of  proper  moral  and  religious 
sentiments  would  alone  hold  the  offices  of  this  country. 
The  exercise  of  prayer  would  have  an  effect  to  calm  excite- 
ment, and  contribute  to  moderation,  and  for  that  reason  he 
was  in  favor  of  it.  The  gentleman  from  Des  Moines  (Mr. 
Hepner,)  was  generally  correct,  but  he  and  others  were 
wrong  in  the  present  instance.  He  assumed  that  the  Ser- 
geant-at-Arms  might  be  sent  to  bring  in  absent  members. 
It  was  not  so.  Members  were  required  to  be  present  at 
hours  when  the  Convention  was  doing  business.  The 
Convention  was  not  opened  to  do  business  until  after  the 
prayer.  The  prayer  itself  opened  the  Convention.  There 
was  no  proper  organization  till  afterwards,  and  members 
could  not  be  compelled  to  attend  till  afterwards.  Members 
of  Congress  were  not  compelled  to  attend  on  the  prayers. 
The  plea  of  compulsion  was  frivolous.  He  was  willing  to 
follow  the  example  of  the  fathers  of  the  country,  but  he  did 


20  Cotivention  of  1844. 

not  support  prayer  solely  on  the  ground  of  precedent — it 
would  tend  to  give  dignity  and  character  to  the  Convention, 
in  all  time  to  come.  Mr.  L.  could  not  believe  that  those 
who  talked  about  blending  Church  and  State,  were  serious 
in  what  they  said.  It  seemed  too  trifling.  Members  of 
Congress  were  not  afraid  of  blending  Church  and  State, 
nor  did  the  members  of  the  Convention  that  formed  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  believe  so.  He  hoped 
the  gentleman  from  Henry  (Mr.  Hall)  would  withdraw  his 
amendment,  and  permit  the  vote  to  be  taken  on  the  original 
resolution,  and  if  the  friends  of  prayer  were  defeated,  they 
would  submit. 

Mr.  Durham  now  offered  a  resolution  to  postpone  the 
further  consideration  of  the  subject  until  Monday  next;  but 
the  resolution  was  cut  off  by  a  motion  from  Mr.  Lang- 
worthy  that  the  Convention  adjourn;  which  prevailed. 


Friday,  Oct.  ii,  1844. 

Mr.  Cutler  introduced  a  resolution  that  provision  be  made 
so  that  in  all  elections  in  the  State  of  Iowa,  the  will  of  the 
majority  shall  control.     Laid  over. 

Mr.  Hawkins  introduced  a  resolution  for  the  preservation 
of  the  manuscript  journals  of  the  Convention.     Agreed  to. 

Mr.  Galbraith  offered  a  resolution  that  no  person  be  per- 
mitted to  speak  on  any  question  more  than  once,  nor  more 
than  one  hour,  unless  by  permission  of  a  majority.  Laid 
on  the  table. 

Mr.  Langworthy,  from  Committee  on  Internal  Improve- 
ments; Mr.  Lucas,  from  Committee  on  the  Executive 
Department;  Mr.  Clarke,  from  the  Committee  on  Suffrage; 
Mr.  Bailey,  from  the  Committee  on  Education  and  School 
Lands;  Mr.  Hempstead,  in  behalf  of  the   majority  of  the 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  21 

Committee  on  Corporations;  and  the  same  gentleman, from 
the  minority  of  the  last  named  Committee;  severally  made 
reports,  which  are  noticed  hereafter. 

The  President  announced  the  following  additional  Stand- 
ing Committees: 

On  Militia  System, —  Messrs.  Gehon,  Cook,  Gower, 
Hooten,  Ross  of  Jefferson,  Evans,  Ripley. 

On  Ainendments  of  the  Constitution. — Messrs.  Quinton, 
Taylor,  Felkner,  Whitmore,  Price,  Williams,  Charleton. 

On  the  Schedule. — Messrs.  Lowe  of  Des  Moines,  Galland, 
Crawford,  Campbell  of  Scott,  Hepner,  Delashmutt,  Gal- 
braith. 

On  State  Revenue. — Messrs.  Fletcher,  Lucas,  Lang- 
worthy,  Hawkins,  Randolph,  Shelleday,  Wright,  Marsh, 
Ross  of  Washington. 

The  Convention  resumed  the  consideration  of  the  resolu- 
tion of  Mr.  Sells,  providing  for  daily  prayer;  and  refused  to 
postpone  the  subject  to  Monday. 

Mr.  Hall  withdrew  his  amendment,  viz. :  to  commence 
the  exercise  of  prayer  half  an  hour  before  the  meeting  of 
the  Convention. 

Mr.  Galbraith  moved  the  indefinite  postponement  of  the 
resolution.     Carried;  yeas  44,  nays  26,  as  follows: 

Yeas — Messrs.  Bailey,  Benedict,  Bissell,  Bratton,  Brown, 
Butler,  Charleton,  Clarke,  Crawford,  Cutler,  Davidson, 
Durham,  Ferguson,  Galbraith,  Galland,  Gehon,  Grant,  Hall, 
Hale,  Harrison,  Hempstead,  Hepner,  Hooten,  Kirkfatrick, 
Langworthy,  Lowe  of  Des  Moines,  Marsh,  Mordan,McAtee, 
Murray,  O'Brien,  Olmstead,  Peck,  Price,  Quinton,  Ross  of 
Jefferson,  Salmon,  Staley,  Strong,  Taylor,  Thompson, 
Whitmore,  Wyckoff,  President. 

Nays  —  Blankenship,  Brookbank,  Campbell  of  Scott, 
Campbell  of  Washington,  Chapman,  Cook,  Delashmutt, 
Felkner,  Fletcher,  Gower,  Hawkins,  Hobson,  Kerr,  Lowe 
of  Muscatine,  Lucas,  McCrory,  McKean,  Randolph,  Ripley, 


22  Convention  of  1844.. 

Robinson,   Ross  of    Washington,   Sells    Shelleday,    Toole, 

Williams,  Wright. 
[Whigs  in  Italic,  Locos  in  Roman.] 
The  Convention  adjourned  till  2  o'clock,  p.  m. 

Afternoon  Session. 

The  Convention  took  up  for  consideration  the  report  of 
the  Committee  on  Boundaries  for  the  State  of  Iowa.  The 
draft  of  the  Committee  provided  that  the  State  should  be 
bounded  by  the  river  Des  Moines  to  Sullivan's  line ;  by  that 
line  to  the  "Old  N.  W.  corner  of  Missouri,"  thence  due 
west  to  the  Missouri  river,  thence  to  the  Big  Sioux  or 
Calumet  river,  up  the  same  of  the  first  branch  falling  into  it 
on  the  east  side,  and  up  that  branch  to  a  point  where  it  is 
intersected  by  the  boundary  established  in  the  Treaty  of 
1830,  with  the  Sac  and  Foxes,  and  other  Indians,  from 
thence  to  the  St.  Peters  river,  opposite  the  mouth  of  the 
Blue  Earth,  and  down  the  St.  Peters  to  the  Mississippi,  and 
down  the  Mississippi  to  the  place  of  beginning,  opposite  the 
mouth  of  the  Des  Moines. 

Mr.  Gower  moved  to  amend  by  taking  the  45th  parallel 
as  the  Northern  boundary. 

Mr.  Chapman  opposed  this  proposition,  because  it  would 
make  the  State  too  large,  and  would  disturb  a  compromise 
made  in  the  committee,  and  give  room  for  the  introduction 
of  sectional  influences. 

Mr.  Lucas  opposed  it  because  it  would  take  in  a  large 
range  of  broken  and  comparatively  valueless  country, 
which  had  no  natural  connection  with  us,  bringing  within 
the  State  more  than  120,000  square  miles.  It  would  also 
include  the  country  of  the  Sioux  Indians,  the  title  to  which 
would  hardly  ever  be  extinguished.  The  laws  of  the  United 
States  only  could  be  in  force  there :  the  laws  of  the  State  of 
Iowa  could  not  reach  there,  and  it  would  become  a  resort 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  23 

for  desperadoes.  Extending  our  boundary  so  far,  would 
operate  to  our  prejudice  in  Congress.  You  go  up  the 
Missouri  100  miles  above  the  Council  Bluffs,  and  take  in 
country  enough  to  make  a  new  State. 

Mr.  Gower  explained,  that  he  offered  the  amendment 
because  the  boundaries  reported  by  the  Committee  were 
indefinite.  It  was  impossible  to  tell  whether  the  rivers 
existed  as  stated.  He  was  in  favor  of  the  45th  parallel, 
because  that  was  certain. 

Mr.  Langworthy  was  desirous  of  securing  an  ample  ter- 
ritory, and  wished  a  tract  of  country  above  the  St.  Peters. 
He  had  examined  the  country  above  that  river,  and  it 
excelled  any  of  the  settled  parts  of  the  Territory.  All 
included  would  make  none  too  much  for  a  great  and  power- 
ful State. 

Mr.  Hall  remarked  upon  the  uncertainty  attached  to  the 
boundaries  reported  by  the  Committee. 

Mr.  Quinton  sustained  the  report  of  the  Committee  and 
expressed  himself  perfectly  satisfied.  The  question  being 
now  taken  on  Mr.  Gower's  amendment,  it  was  lost. 

Mr.  Hall  then  proposed  the  42  ^  parallel  as  the  boundary. 
He  said  if  gentlemen  could  demonstrate  to  him  that  the 
Calumet  river  was  within  50  miles  of  where  it  was  laid  down 
to  be,  he  would  not  offer  the  amendment.  The  amendment 
drew  a  line,  including  about  the  same  as  that  of  the  Com- 
mittee. He  should  regret  exceedingly  to  fix  a  boundary, 
and  find  it  incorrect.  As  an  example,  take  one  of  the  maps 
formed  after  the  Treaty  with  the  Sacs  and  Foxes;  some  of 
the  rivers  were  placed  150  miles  out  of  the  way. 

Mr.  Lucas  explained,  that  he  thought  the  map  relied 
upon  (Judson's)  to  be  generally  correct. 

Mr.  Peck  moved  the  44th  parallel.  He  had  been  told 
that  Judson's  map  was  copied  from  old  maps  made  before 
it.  If  natural  boundaries  could  be  formed,  he  should  prefer 
them. 


24  Convention  of  1844.. 

Mr.  Fletcher  desired  to  include  all  possible  of  the  Missis- 
sippi and  Missouri  rivers.  He  would  have  a  large  territory. 
Mr.  Hall  urged  that  in  carrying  the  line  up  the  Missouri 
above  42^  degrees,  it  would  form  an  inconvenient  terri- 
tory. The  river  took  a  western  direction,  and  encircled  a 
district  of  country  which  would  be  disadvantageous  to 
include  in  the  State. 

Messrs.  Chapman  and  Lucas  expressed  their  willingness 
to  concur  in  the  proposition  of  Mr.  Hall. 

The  vote  being  taken,  Mr.  Hall's  amendment  was  agreed 
to. 

Mr.  Langworthy  desired  to  amend,  by  having  the  line  to 
run  from  the  mouth  of  the  Blue  Earth  river,  to  the  Missis- 
sippi, opposite  to  the  mouth  of  the  Little  Sac  river.  That 
would  take  in  a  country  that  Iowa  wanted. 

Mr.  Chapman  opposed.  It  included  a  large  section  of 
country  not  wanted,  and  was  a  kind  of  creeping  up  on  the 
North  which  was  not  in  good  faith  to  the  South.  There 
were  other  desirable  tracts  that  might  be  included,  as  well 
as  that  the  gentleman  proposed  to  cross  the  Saint  Peters 
for. 

Mr.  Lowe,  of  Muscatine,  voted  for  the  amendment  of 
Mr.  Hall.  He  would  prefer  a  line  running  from  42^ 
degrees  on  the  Missouri  river,  direct  to  the  mouth  of  the 
Little  Sac.  The  P'alls  of  St.  Anthony  would  be  a  valuable 
acquisition  to  the  State  of  Iowa;  would  add  wealth  and 
power.  We  could  not  have  too  much  water  power.  It 
was  also  said  to  be  valuable  for  mineral  resources. 

Mr.  Lucas  suggested  a  line  to  run  from  the  mouth  of 
Calumet  river  to  the  mouth  of  the  Little  Sac. 

The  members  desiring  opportunity  to  examine  the  sub- 
ject, the  further  discussion  was  postponed. 

The  Convention  then  took  up  the  report  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  the  Bill  of  Rights.  The  first  section  of  the  report 
declares  that  "All  men  are  by  nature  free  and  independent." 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  25 

Mr.  Hall  proposed  to  strike  out  ''by  nature." 

Mr.  Bailey  thought  that  would  not  quite  do;  and  referred 
to  the  institution  of  slavery,  as  a  point  of  inconsistency. 

Mr.  Hall  withdrew  his  proposition. 

The  4th  article  having  been  read,  which  declares  that 
"No  religious  test  shall  be  required,"  etc.,  and  that  no  per- 
son, for  religious  opinion,  shall  be  disqualified  for  the 
performance  of  any  duty,  "  public  or  private." 

Mr.  Galbraith  moved  to  insert  after  the  word  'public,' 
"  or  be  rendered  incompetent  to  give  testimony  in  any  court 
of  law  or  equity." 

Mr.  Lowe,  of  Muscatine,  said  he  was  unable  to  under- 
stand the  meaning  of  the  language  used  in  the  report;  but 
he  was  in  favor  of  the  law  remaining  on  that  subject  as  it 
was  at  present;  that  Atheists  should  not  be  admitted  to  give 
testimony. 

Mr.  Grant  thought  the  language  in  the  report  perfectly 
plain.     It  was  meant  to  cover  everything. 

Mr.  Hall  was  in  the  same  predicament  as  the  gentleman 
from  Muscatine,  (Mr.  Lowe);  he  could  not  understand  the 
language  used  by  the  Committee.  If  it  was  meant  to 
exclude  Atheists,  let  us  talk  it  right  out.  He  was  in  favor 
of  admitting  them  to  testify,  and  leaving  their  credibility 
with  the  jury. 

The  question  was  taken,  and  the  amendment  prevailed. 

Mr.  Harrison  desired  to  amend  the  5th  article,  so  that  all 
laws  should  be  published  30  days  before  taking  effect. 

Mr.  Hall  proposed  laws  of  a  penal  nature. 

Upon  the  suggestion  of  Mr.  Chapman  that  he  would 
move  a  proposition  of  that  character  in  the  Legislative 
Department,  the  subject  was  dropped;  and  soon  after  the 
Convention  adjourned. 


26  Convention  of  1844. 

Saturday,  Oct.  12,  1844. 

Mr.  Hobson  presented  a  petition  from  sundry  citizens  of 
the  Territory,  asking  that  persons  of  color  be  permitted 
to  vote. 

Mr.  Fletcher  moved  to  lay  the  petition  on  the  table. 
Lost. 

Mr.  Chapman  moved  its  reference  to  the  Committee  on 
Suffrage  and  Citizenship.     Lost. 

Mr.  Hall  moved  that  it  be  referred  to  a  select  committee 
of  three.  Agreed  to,  and  Messrs.  Hall,  Hawkins  and 
Quinton  appointed. 

Mr.  Quinton  asked  to  be  excused,  upon  the  ground  of 
being  committed  against  the  prayer  of  the  petition. 

Mr.  Hawkins  and  others  opposed,  and  after  considerable 
discussion,  Mr.  Quinton  was  excused,  and  Mr.  Hobson 
appointed. 

Mr.  Hepner  proposed  adding  to  the  committee,  the 
whole  remaining  delegation  from  Henry  county. 

Mr.  Chapman  suggested  that  the  petition  be  referred  to 
a  Committee  of  the  Whole  Convention,  when  in  session 
upon  the  subject  of  Suffrage  and  Citizenship.  There  would 
be  ample  opportunity  in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  for 
discussion.  What  was  the  use  of  sending  reports  to  agitate 
the  country?  The  question  would  simply  be  upon  chang- 
ing one  word  in  the  report  of  a  Standing  Committee — 
whether  the  permission  to  vote  should  be  to  white  male 
citizens,  or  to  male  citizens,  without  qualification.  It  was 
a  question  of  expediency  for  the  Convention  to  decide. 
The  journals  of  the  Convention  would  go  to  the  country, 
and  there  was  no  use  in  printing  reports  to  send  abroad  to 
excite  discussion.  We  wanted  to  settle  the  matter  without 
excitement. 

Mr.  Hawkins  moved  to  reconsider  the  vote  referring  the 
petition  to  a  select  committee. 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  27 

Mr.  Bailey  was  opposed  to  the  proposed  change.  He 
said  he  did  not  intend,  when  up  previously,  to  charge  the 
gentleman  from  Henry  (Mr.  Hawkins)  with  being  an  Abo- 
litionist, but  after  what  Mr.  H.  had  said,  he  thought  it  likely 
he  was.  Mr.  B.  was  in  favor  of  free  discussion  upon  every 
subject,  and  he  thought  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from 
Wapello,  (Mr.  Chapman)  was  calculated  to  smother  the 
subject  in  question.  What  was  the  object  of  referring  to  a 
select  committee?  The  object  of  a  report  was  to  inform 
the  Convention,  not  to  go  abroad.  He  was  not  afraid  for 
it  to  go  to  the  people.  He  believed  in  their  intelligence  and 
capability  of  self-government.  He  had  confidence  in  the 
people  of  Van  Buren  county,  and  was  willing  to  feed  their 
intellects  with  the  same  food  that  he  feasted  upon.  He  was 
in  favor  of  the  right  of  petition — petition  upon  every  sub- 
ject, and  let  us  examine  and  discuss.  He  was  opposed  to 
Abolition.  There  were  but  few  Abolitionists  in  the  Terri- 
tory; but  however  meagre  their  numbers,  they  had  rights, 
and  let  them  be  heard.  The  committee  should  be  made  up 
of  men  entertaining  different  opinions. 

Mr.  Ferguson  called  for  the  Previous  Question  and  the 
call  was  sustained. 

The  Previous  Question,  which  was  on  the  motion  of  Mr. 
Hawkins,  was  put  and  carried. 

Mr.  Hall,  now  moved  to  refer  the  petition  to  a  select 
committee  of  13.  He  said,  he  believed  it  was  our  duty  to 
treat  the  subject  with  some  candor  and  discretion.  It 
should  have  been  left  with  the  select  committee,  it  would 
have  been  better  for  the  Convention.  It  was  folly  to  shut 
our  eyes  to  facts.  There  was  a  large  number  of  citizens, 
as  worthy  as  any  other,  in  favor  of  the  prayer  of  the  peti- 
tion. They  should  not  be  met  with  an  excitement  on  the 
part  of  the  majority.  Meet  them  with  reason,  and  if  we 
refuse  to  grant  what  they  asked,  give  them  a  reason  for  it. 
We  are  standing  in  an  important  position,  and  should  meet 


28  Convention  of  1844. 

this  question  properly  at  the  start.  He  called  upon  the 
Convention  to  do  so.  We  should  appoint  a  Committee 
composed  of  members  from  all  parts  of  the  Territory,  and 
have  a  report.  The  petitioners  had  a  right  to  a  reply,  and 
we  should  meet  the  question  like  men,  not  like  children. 
Let  our  decision  go  to  the  world — embody  the  reasons  and 
let  them  go  to  the  world  also.  This  should  be  our  feeling, 
discarding  all  narrow  prejudice.  To  meet  this  question  in 
a  proper  spirit  would  do  much  good;  it  would  convince  the 
petitioners  that  they  are  not  persecuted  and  turned  out  of 
doors. 

Mr.  Lowe,  of  Des  Moines,  proposed  amending  Mr.  Hall's 
motion,  so  as  to  refer  the  petition  to  a  Committee  of  the 
Whole  Convention,  to  be  considered  when  the  report  of  the 
Committee  on  Suffrage  and  Citizenship,  should  be  under 
consideration. 

Mr.  Lucas  was  opposed  to  this,  and  concurred  in  the 
proposition  of  Mr.  Hall.  He  said  the  subject  should  be 
met  with  candor.  To  refer  the  petition  to  the  Whole  Con- 
vention was  not  what  was  due  to  the  petitioners.  The 
subject  was  causing  excitement  throughout  the  country,  and 
in  Congress,  and  it  should  be  met  with  reason.  Refer  it 
to  a  select  committee,  and  the  report  will  go  to  the  world. 
He  was  not  an  Abolitionist,  but  he  believed  Slavery  to  be  a 
moral  and  political  evil,  and  was  in  favor  of  meeting  the 
subject  with  candor. 

Mr.  Lowe,  of  Muscatine,  preferred  the  committee  of  the 
whole  Convention ;  he  thought  it  would  consider  the  subject 
as  fairly  as  a  committee  of  thirteen.  The  Convention  had 
not  met  for  the  purpose  of  sending  reports  to  the  world 
upon  vexed  questions. 

Mr.  Chapman  thought  the  committee  of  the  whole  would 
give  a  better  chance  for  consideration  than  a  select  com- 
mittee. He  was  not  aware  of  any  disposition  to  give  the 
question  the  go-by.     If  gentlemen  were  inclined  to  facilitate 


Fragments  from   The  lo-wa  Standard.  29 

business,  they  ought  to  accept  the  proposition  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Des  Moines,  (Mr.  Lowe). 

Mr.  Hall  desired  a  select  committee  for  one  reason, 
because  he  presumed  its  report  would  be  adverse  to  the 
prayer  of  the  petition,  and  that  would  settle  the  whole 
matter  without  further  trouble. 

Mr.  Hawkins  thought  the  committee  of  the  whole  the 
proper  place. 

The  question  was  now  taken  upon  the  amendment  of 
Mr.  Lowe,  of  Des  Moines,  and  it  was  lost,  19  voting  in  its 
favor,  51  against  it. 

The  main  question,  on  referring  the  petition  to  a  com- 
mittee of  13,  was  next  put  and  carried. 

The  Hall,  from  the  committee  appointed  to  draft  an 
article  upon  the  Judicial  Department;  and  Mr.  Lowe,  of 
Muscatine,  from  the  Committee  upon  the  subject  of  the 
Legislative  Department,  made  reports. 

Mr.  Grant,  (one  of  the  committee)  disclaimed  any  partic- 
ipation in  fixing  the  salary  of  the  Judges,  or  in  the  plan  of 
taxing  suits. 

Mr.  Hall  replied,  that  hardly  any  two  agreed  to  all  parts 
of  the  report.  It  was  the  result  of  compromise,  and  was 
the  best  that  could  be  made. 

Adjourned  till  2  o'clock. 

Afternoon  Session. 

The  Convention,  in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  resumed 
the  consideration  of  the  State  Boundary  question. 

Mr.  R.  P.  Lowe  moved  to  amend  the  draft,  so  that  the 
line  should  run  directly  from  the  mouth  of  the  Calumet 
river  to  the  Mississippi,  opposite  to  the  mouth  of  the  Little 
Sac. 

Mr.  Chapman  opposed  the  proposition  for  want  of  cer- 
tainty. 


30  Convention  of  184^. 

Mr.  Hall  was  willing  to  extend  the  line  upon  the  Missis- 
sippi, so  as  to  include  the  mouth  of  the  St.  Peters  river, 
and  St.  Anthony's  falls,  and  would  be  willing  to  agree  to 
the  Big  Sioux,  (Calumet)  if  any  gentleman  could  assure 
him,  that  the  mouth  of  that  river  was  not  above  42^ 
degrees. 

Mr.  Lucas  read  from  an  Indian  Treaty,  in  explanation  of 
the  position  of  the  Little  Sac. 

Mr.  Chapman  said  it  increased  the  uncertainty. 

The  question  on  Mr.  Lowe's  proposition  was  taken,  and 
it  was  lost. 

Mr.  Clarke  moved  to  strike  out  the  words  "  Old  Indian 
Boundary  line,  or  line  run  by  John  C.  Sullivan  in  the  year 
1816,"  as  descriptive  of  a  part  of  what  was  claimed  as  the 
southern  boundary  of  the  State  of  Iowa,  and  substitute 
therefor  the  words  "  Northern  boundary  of  the  State  of 
Missouri." 

Mr.  Lucas  said  he  was  decidedly  opposed  to  the  amend- 
ment. It  was  as  much  as  to  say  we  give  up  to  Missouri 
to  take  what  line  she  chooses  for  her  North  Boundary. 
The  Sullivan  line  was  the  true  line.  It  was  the  line  that 
divided  the  Surveyor  Generals'  districts,  and  was  the  line 
referred  to  in  every  treaty  with  the  Indians; — Our  citizens 
had  purchased  their  land  going  up  to  that  line,  and  it  was 
our  duty  to  maintain  it  as  the  Southern  line  of  the  State  of 
Iowa.  He  was  not  afraid  of  the  opposition  of  the  Repre- 
sentatives of  Missouri,  and  would  not  stoop  to  curry  their 
favour.  They  would  oppose  our  admission  any  how,  if  a 
Slave  State  did  not  come  in  with  us.  A  committee  of  Con- 
gress had  fully  considered  this  subject  of  our  Southern 
Boundary,  and  their  report  was  that  taking  the  evidence  on 
the  subject,  the  line  of  Iowa  would  go  further  south,  than 
the  Sullivan  line. 

Mr.  Clark  said  he  did  not  agree  that  the  change  proposed 
would  prejudice  our  claim.     He  thought  that  if  we  claimed 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  31 

the  Sullivan  line  by  name,  it  would  create  controversy. 
He  had  conversed  with  a  number  of  the  members  of  Con- 
gress from  Missouri,  and  they  were  anxious  to  admit  us. 

Mr.  Hall  wanted  to  hear  from  the  members  from  Van 
Buren.  If  they  were  willing  to  leave  the  question  open, 
he  did  not  know  but  he  ought  to  be.  He  thought  it  bad 
policy.  We  should  make  a  kind  of  confession,  that  would 
be  against  us. 

Mr.  Lucas  made  an  explanation  of  the  circumstances  of 
Missouri  running  her  Northern  line.  He  did  not  feel  will- 
ing to  yield  a  particle  to  Missouri.  He  believed  the  claim 
of  Missouri  originated  in  land  speculations. 

Mr.  Peck  said  he  had  some  knowledge  of  the  origin  of 
the  Missouri  claim.  It  did  not  originate  with  the  State  of 
Missouri,  but  with  a  portion  of  settlers  upon  the  half  Breed 
tract,  who  thought  by  changing  the  lines  they  would  be 
able  to  get  titles  to  their  land.  He  thought  it  was  policy 
so  to  arrange  the  matter  as  not  to  meet  the  united  opposi- 
tion of  the  Representatives  of  Missouri. 

Mr.  Chapman  said  he  was  willing  to  let  the  question  of 
omission  turn  upon  the  maintenance  of  the  Sullivan  line. 
Our  right  was  even  further  South;  but  settlements  had  been 
made  with  a  view  to  that  as  our  Southern  Boundary.  Our 
claim  had  been  sustained  by  the  unanimous  opinion  of  the 
members  of  Congress,  with  the  exception  of  the  members 
from  Missouri.  They  had  said  that  the  Sullivan  line  was 
the  true  line.  How  would  they  view  it,  should  we  surrender 
it — ats  we  virtually  should  do  if  we  said  we  would  take  the 
Northern  line  of  Missouri.  Mr.  C.  would  vote  against  the 
Constitution,  if  Congress  should  fix  us  at  the  line  claimed 
by  Missouri. 

Mr.  Bailey  said  he  was  glad  the  proposition  of  Mr. 
Clarke  had  been  made,  as  it  elicited  facts  and  opinions;  but 
he  tho't  more  weight  was  given  to  it  than  deserved.  He 
could  not  see  that  it  admitted  the  claim  of  Missouri  to  be 


32  Convention  of  i8^. 

just;  and  he  thought  it  could  not  be,  that  after  the  report  of 
Mr.  Lee,  and  after  all  that  had  been  done  on  the  subject, 
it  could  be  thought  that  such  a  surrender  was  made.  He 
doubted  whether  this  matter  would  make  any  difference  in 
Van  Buren  county.  He  had  understood  from  good  authority 
that  if  Iowa  did  not  agitate  the  boundary  question  any  more, 
Missouri  would  not. 

Mr.  Hall  said  that  what  had  been  said  convinced  him 
that  we  should  not  adopt  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman 
from  Des  Moines.  He  would  give  it  as  his  opinion,  that 
we  would  never  get  admitted  as  a  State,  till  the  boundary 
question  was  settled.  We  should  never  sacrifice  right  to 
expediency.  We  should  rely  upon  the  justice  of  our  cause. 
If  Sullivan's  line  was  ours,  take  it  and  adhere  to  it.  Use 
no  ambiguous  terms,  but  say  Sullivan's  line  at  once. 

Mr.  Hawkins  thought  it  would  be  unwise  to  adopt  the 
amendment.  Iowa  was  given  jurisdiction  to  the  Sullivan 
line,  when  organized  as  a  Territory.  We  claimed  there. 
If  we  gave  it  up  in  our  Constitution,  no  member  of  Con- 
gress would  get  up  and  say  nay.  It  would  be  concluded 
that  we  had  abandoned  it  because  we  had  got  tired  of  the 
controversy.  If  we  maintained  our  claim,  and  Missouri 
objected.  Congress  would  settle  the  matter  before  it  ad- 
mitted us.  It  would  be  better  to  do  so;  it  would  prevent 
trouble  hereafter. 

Mr.  Bailey  stated  that  he  had  been  informed  that  Mis- 
souri had  already  assessed  to  a  considerable  extent  Davis 
county,  and  that  much  anxiety  was  felt  to  have  the  question 
of  boundary  settled. 

Dr.  Davidson  said  he  was  conversant  with  all  the  cir- 
cumstances, and  so  sure  as  we  came  in  with  an  open 
boundary,  we  would  lose  it.  He  said  the  land  office  in  St. 
Louis,  where  the  Missouri  lands  were  sold,  was  careful 
never  to  transcend  Sullivan's  line.  They  knew  better.  At 
the  time  of   the  dispute  arising,  and  when  surveys  were 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  33 

going  on  in  the  disputed  tract,  the  Surveyor  General  at 
Cincinnati  ordered  the  surveys  to  be  suspended  till  he  could 
investigate  the  subject.  When  he  had  done  so,  he  ordered 
the  Surveyors  to  cross  the  Des  Moines  and  complete  the 
Surveys.  He  was  for  maintaining  the  Sullivan  line,  and 
would  shoulder  his  gun  to  do  so,  as  he  had  done  once 
before. 

The  question  was  now  taken  upon  Mr.  Clarke's  amend- 
ment, and  it  was  lost. 

Mr.  R.  P.  Lowe,  proposed  to  amend  by  striking  out  all 
after  Calumet  river,  and  insert,  a  line  running  directly  from 
the  mouth  of  the  Calumet  to  the  Mississippi,  opposite  the 
mouth  of  the  Little  Sac  or  Wahtap  river  (above  St.  An- 
thony's Falls).     Which  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Lowe,  of  Des  Moines,  moved  to  substitute  for  the 
words  Little  Sac,  &c.,  the  words  "  where  the  parallel  of  45 
degrees,  30  minutes,  crosses  said  river,"  (Mississippi)  which 
prevailed. 

The  President  announced  the  following  as  the  select 
committee  upon  the  petition,  asking  that  colored  persons  be 
permitted  to  vote : 

Messrs.  Hall,  Hawkins,  Lowe  of  Des  Moines,  Lowe  of 
Muscatine,  Langworthy,  Hobson,  Bailey,  Thompson,  Lucas, 
Grant,  Shelleday,  Chapman,  Taylor. 

Mr.  Galbraith  offered  a  resolution  instructing  the  com- 
mittee to  inquire  in  the  expediency  of  excluding  from  the 
State  all  persons  of  color,  or  admitting  them  under  severe 
restrictions. 

Mr.  Lucas  said  this  would  be  violating  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States.  Missouri  was  nearly  kept  out  of  the 
Union  by  inserting  such  a  provision  in  her  Constitution. 

Mr.  Galbraith  said  it  merely  asked  for  the  opinion  of  the 
Committee. 

The  resolution  was  agreed  to,  and  the  Convention 
adjourned. 


34  Convention  of  1844. 

Monday,  Oct.  14,  1844. 

Mr.  Hoag  appeared,  presented  his  credentials  and  took 
his  seat. 

Mr.  Hawkins,  from  the  Committee  on  County  Organiza- 
tion, read  a  report. 

Mr.  Fletcher  gave  notice  that  he  would  submit  a  minority 
report  from  the  Judiciary  Committee. 

Mr.  Randolph  moved  to  reconsider  the  vote  on  Saturday, 
whereby  the  20th  degree  of  longitude  on  the  Missouri  was 
adopted  as  a  point  in  the  boundary  of  the  State.     Carried. 

Mr.  Campbell,  of  Washington,  moved  to  insert  in  the 
Preamble  of  the  Constitution,  as  reported  by  the  Committee 
on  Boundaries,  the  following  words,  "  grateful  to  the 
Supreme  Ruler  of  the  Universe  for  the  blessings  hitherto 
enjoyed  as  a  people,  and  acknowledging  our  dependence 
upon  Him  for  the  continuation  of  those  blessings;"  which 
was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Langworthy  moved  that  the  above  report  be  now 
referred  to  a  select  committee;  which  was  agreed  to. 

The  Convention  now  went  into  committee  of  the  whole, 
for  the  consideration  of  the  Bill  of  Rights. 

Mr.  Fletcher  moved  to  strike  out  a  portion  of  the  8th 
article,  touching  suits  in  Justices  Courts;  which  was  agreed 
to. 

Mr.  Hempstead  moved  to  add  to  Art.  13,  a  provision 
forbidding  a  standing  army  in  time  of  peace;  which  was 
agreed  to. 

Mr.  Hall  moved  to  amend  the  15th  Article,  by  adding 
the  following  words,  "  and  no  person  shall  be  convicted  of 
treason,  when  the  act  is  clearly  done  in  accordance  with 
the  will  of  a  majority  of  the  citizens  of  the  State." 

Mr.  H.  stated  that  he  offered  the  above  amendment  to 
meet  precisely  such  a  case  as  he  understood  to  exist  in  the 
case  of  Mr.  Dorr,  of  Rhode  Island. 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  35 

Mr.  Grant  said  he  would  vote  as  far  as  any  man  to  sus- 
tain Mr.  Dorr;  but  it  would  be  time  enough  when  we  had 
such  a  Constitution  as  Rhode  Island  had,  to  make  provi- 
sions as  the  gentleman  proposed.  Such  a  provision  would 
give  room  for  cavil  in  defending  persons  who  might  be 
accused.     He  was  opposed  to  the  amendment. 

Mr.  Hall  said  he  would  not  be  willing  to  leave  the  Article 
as  it  stood.  It  read  treason  should  consist  in  "  levying  war 
against  the  State,"  giving  "  aid  and  comfort "  to  its  enemies 
&c.  It  was  not  possible  for  us  to  say  what  circumstances 
might  arise.  Suppose  a  citizen  should  have  to  give  aid  and 
comfort  to  the  enemies  of  the  State;  that  person  would  be 
subjected  to  all  the  penalties  of  treason.  Suppose  a  majority 
should  levy  war  against  some  of  the  institutions  of  the 
State;  persons  would  be  tried  and  convicted.  Such  a  case 
now  existed  in  Rhode  Island,  and  a  person  was  in  prison, 
suffering  punishment.  He  should  talk  this  matter  out  on  a 
proper  occasion. 

Mr.  Peck  suggested  that  such  a  provision  as  Mr.  Hall 
proposed  would  be  unnecessary  in  our  Constitution,  as  it 
would  contain  a  provision  for  its  own  amendment,  which 
the  Rhode  Island  Constitution  did  not. 

Mr.  Fletcher  inquired  if  in  any  case  of  trial  for  treason, 
the  proposed  provision  could  not  be  plead,  and  what  means 
could  be  adopted  to  arrive  at  facts. 

Mr.  Hall  said,  we  should  reason  within  the  line  of  prob- 
ability. No  person  would  be  convicted  for  asking  that  the 
Constitution  be  amended.  The  argument  had  no  force. 
A  case  might  arise  where  a  man  who  acted,  not  in  accord- 
ance with  law,  but  in  accordance  with  the  will  of  the 
majority,  might  be  swung  up.  The  gentleman  from  Mus- 
catine, (Mr.  Fletcher)  wanted  to  know  how  this  would  be 
ascertained.  It  would  be  ascertained  by  a  jury;  and  if  they 
found  he  acted  in  accordance  with  the  will  of  a  majority, 
they  would  be  bound  to  acquit  him,  although  he  had  not 


36  Convention  of  1844. 

acted  in  accordance  with  the  laws  of  the  State,  or  the 
decisions  of  the  Judicial  tribunals. 

Mr.  Lowe,  of  Muscatine,  regretted  that  Mr.  Hall's 
amendment  had  been  offered.  It  was  very  inexpedient  and 
unwise  to  lug  in  what  had  no  connection  with  the  duties  of 
the  Convention,  to  create  discussion.  The  gentleman  (Mr. 
Hall)  said,  "  talk  it  out  " — and  that  seemed  to  be  his  course, 
to  lug  in  things  that  have  nothing  to  do  here,  and  tell  us  to 
"talk  it  out;"  and  Mr.  L.  was  afraid  he  would  prove 
troublesome  to  the  Convention  before  it  was  over,  with  his 
disposition  to  "talk  it  out."  He  had  not  answered  the 
question  of  Mr.  Fletcher.  It  would  be  impossible  to  ascer- 
tain whether  the  accused  was  guilty  or  not.  Would  have 
to  summon  every  citizen  of  the  State  into  Court,  not  to 
testify  to  facts,  but  to  tell  his  opinion.  If  it  was  not  done 
so,  a  vote  would  have  to  be  taken,  and  proceedings  sus- 
pended for  it.  He  never  knew  anything  so  preposterous 
to  come  from  a  legal  gentleman.  His  would  be  no  trial  by 
a  jury  and  Court,  but  by  all  the  people.  The  proposition 
was  an  attempt  to  stamp  a  partizen  dogma  upon  the  Consti- 
tution. He  was  pledged  to  oppose  any  such  attempts. 
Mr.  Dorr,  of  his  own  mere  motion,  had  passed  over  the 
State,  beating  up  for  volunteers  to  revolutionize  the  gov- 
ernment. He  had  been  tried  and  convicted,  and  rightfully 
convicted.  It  was  a  truly  novel  proceeding,  that  the  gen- 
tleman was  proposing  here,  for  trying  future  Dorrs. 

Mr.  Hall  said  the  gentleman  from  Muscatine  (Mr.  Lowe) 
said  Dorr  was  justly  convicted.  He  took  issue  with  him 
there;  he  locked  horns  with  the  gentleman.  He  wished  to 
prohibit  in  the  State  of  Iowa  any  such  convictions.  The 
principle  was  odious,  and  the  time  would  come  when  it 
would  be  universally  thought  so.  It  was  unworthy  of  free- 
men, and  only  worthy  of  the  Autocrat  of  Russia. 

Mr.  Lowe,  of  Muscatine,  said  that  no  citizen  in  the  future 
State  of  Iowa  would  ever  be  placed  in  the  same  situation 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  37 

as  were  the  citizens  of  Rhode  Island.  The  Charter  of  that 
State  contained  no  provision  for  its  own  amendment.  That 
fact  was  what  was  made  the  color  of  justification  for  the 
revolutionary  attempt  in  that  State.  If  the  right  proposed 
was  granted,  might  as  well  have  no  Constitution.  The 
majority  might  sanction  a  violation  of  it  whenever  they 
chose.  A  Constitution  was  intended  to  be  binding  upon  a 
majority  as  well  as  a  minority.  The  gentleman's  amend- 
ment would  make  it  of  no  binding  force  upon  the  majority. 
If  this  was  to  prevail,  a  Constitution  would  be  a  rope  of 
sand  that  any  mad-man  might  break;  it  would  not  be  worth 
a  straw,  and  we  had  better  go  home. 

Mr.  Chapman  opposed  the  proposition  of  Mr.  Hall,  on 
account  of  its  tendency  to  sanction  violence  and  force. 

Mr.  Fletcher  said  he  was  pledged  to  have  engrafted  on 
the  Constitution  true  Democratic  Jeffersonian  principles; 
but  he  did  not  believe  the  principles  of  the  gentleman  from 
Henry  accorded  with  that.  They  were  false  principles. 
Mr.  F.  wished  to  do  everything  in  order,  and  according  to 
law. 

Mr.  Bailey  opposed  the  amendment.  The  Convention 
had  nothing  to  do  with  Dorr. 

Mr.  Lucas  was  opposed  to  the  proposition.  It  was 
uncalled  for,  and  there  was  no  reasonable  way  of  ascertain- 
ing the  will  of  the  majority.  He  was  of  opinion  however, 
that  the  Rhode  Island  case  was  sanctioned  by  precedent. 

At  this  juncture  Mr.  Hall  withdrew  his  proposition — 
stating  that  he  should  offer  it  again  in  the  Convention. 

Mr.  Davidson  moved  an  addition  to  the  20th  Article, 
(which  forbids  "  laws  impairing  the  obligation  of  contract,") 
in  order  to  make  it  more  comprehensible  to  the  common 
people.  The  meaning  would  be  the  same,  but  they  could 
understand  it  better. 

Mr.  Grant  thought  it  better  to  let  it  be  as  it  was,  as  deci- 
sions had  been  had  upon  these  words,  and  their  legal  char- 


38  Convention  of  1844. 

acter  was  ascertained.  They  forbid  every  kind  of  Legis- 
lative interference  with  contracts. 

Mr.  Davidson  withdrew  his  amendment,  but  immediately 
after  Mr.  Hempstead  and  Mr.  Galbraith  each  proposed 
amendments  of  similar  character;  but  they  failed  to  take 
effect  on  the  Convention. 

Mr.  Taylor  proposed  the  following,  as  an  additional 
Article :  '*  Neither  Slavery  or  involuntary  servitude  unless 
for  the  punishment  of  crimes,  shall  ever  be  tolerated  in  this 
State;"  which  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Blankenship  proposed  an  additional  section  prohibit- 
ing the  laying  of  a  poll-tax;  but  before  the  question  was 
taken,  the  committee  rose  and  reported  the  Bill  to  the 
Convention,  and  the  Convention  adjourned. 

Afternoon  Session. 

The  Convention  resumed  the  consideration  of  the  Bill 
of  Rights,  as  reported  from  the  Committee  of  the  whole. 

Mr.  Lowe,  of  Muscatine,  moved  to  amend  the  4th  article, 
by  striking  out  all  after  the  words  "  public  trust;"  (includ- 
ing the  amendment  of  Mr.  Galbraith,)  and  inserting  "  and 
no  person  shall  be  denied  the  enjoyment  of  any  civil  right, 
merely  on  account  of  his  religious  opinions.  There  shall 
be  no  establishment  of  one  religious  sect,  in  preference  to 
another." 

Mr.  Lowe  stated  as  the  reason  of  proposing  the  amend- 
ment, that  he  desired  to  have  witnesses  left  by  the  Consti- 
tution on  the  same  footing  as  they  now  were  by  law.  The 
courts  excluded  all  persons  who  disbelieved  in  a  Supreme 
Being,  because  there  was  nothing  that  such  a  person  could 
swear  by.  An  oath  called  upon  the  Deity  to  witness  the 
truth  of  what  was  said,  and  to  withdraw  his  favor  from  the 
person  if  it  was  untrue.  Atheists  consequently  could  not 
take  an  oath.     If  admitted  they  w^ould  have  to  be  placed 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  39 

on  a  different  footing  from  all  others,  and  permitted  to 
testify  without  being  sworn.  Loose  persons,  interested 
for  a  friend,  and  who  did  not  care  much  to  tell  a  lie,  when 
not  under  oath,  might  come  into  court  as  witnesses,  and 
call  themselves  Atheists,  and  be  permittted  to  tell  what  they 
were  a  mind  to  without  being  sworn.  They  could  not  even 
be  sworn  as  to  being  Atheists.  This  would  be  unsafe. 
Atheists  themselves  could  not  complain  at  being  excluded, 
because  it  was  no  particular  right  which  they  possessed  to 
testify.  The  same  provision,  said  Mr.  L.,  as  the  one  he 
proposed,  had  just  been  adopted  in  the  new  Constitution  of 
N.  Jersey. 

Mr.  Galbraith  inquired  if,  at  present  all  who  did  not 
believe  in  a  future  state  of  rewards  and  punishments  were 
not  excluded  from  giving  testimony. 

Mr.  Lowe  replied  that  only  Atheists  were  excluded. 

Mr.  Hempstead  thought  the  gentleman  from  Muscatine 
was  mistaken.  The  common  law  was  that  no  person 
should  be  admitted  to  testify  who  did  not  believe  in  a  future 
state  of  rewards  and  punishments.  In  a  case  in  Connecti- 
cut, a  person  who  was  a  Universalist  was  excluded,  and  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  State  supported  the  decision;  and  in 
Starkie  it  was  laid  down  as  the  law.  Let  us  do  away, 
said  Mr.  H.,  with  this  inquiring  into  a  man's  rehgious 
opinions.  He  desired  to  keep  it  out  of  the  Constitution. 
It  was  the  fear  of  the  penalties  of  perjury  that  restrained 
men  from  stating  what  was  not  true — not  future  punish- 
ment. 

Mr.  Hepner  thought  that  no  Judge  but  a  henpecked  one 
would  inquire  into  a  man's  religious  belief.  The  gentleman 
from  Muscatine  was  behind  the  age.  The  provision  in  the 
Bill  of  Rights  was  correct  as  it  stood. 

Mr.  Cook  was  in  favor  of  the  amendment  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Muscatine.  He  said  the  regulation  of  this  matter 
belonged   to  the  Legislature,  and   he  desired   to  leave  it 


40  Convention  of  184^. 

there.  In  New  York,  Universalists  were  admitted  to 
testify.  A  decision  had  been  had  directly  on  that  point, 
and  that  was  declared  to  be  the  law. — Where  a  person 
believed  in  no  responsibility  to  a  Supreme  Being,  it  would 
be  an  idle  mockery  to  swear  him. 

Mr.  Quinton  opposed  the  amendment  of  Mr.  Lowe. 

Mr.  Kirkpatrick  opposed  the  amendment.  He  thought 
it  religious  legislation,  and  an  infringement  of  the  natural 
rights  of  man.  If  a  man  was  an  Atheist,  he  could  say, 
when  called  upon  to  testify,  "I  have  been  converted — I 
believe  in  a  God  now;"  and  in  that  way  the  matter  would 
be  got  around. 

Mr.  Hawkins  supported  Mr.  Lowe's  amendment,  and 
cited  the  Constitutions  of  Kentucky  and  Tennessee  as 
instances  of  the  exclusion  of  persons  disbelieving  in  a  God. 
He  said  much  was  said  about  natural  rights;  but  it  was  no 
natural  right  to  testify.  Those  who  claimed  to  admit 
Atheists  started  out  with  the  principle  that  there  was  to  be 
no  distinction;  but  they  straightly  made  a  distinction,  by 
swearing  A,  who  believed  in  a  God,  to  tell  the  truth,  and 
admitting  B,  who  denied  a  God,  without  any  kind  of  quali- 
fication. 

Mr.  Grant  said  that  to  think  upon  the  subject  of  religion 
as  he  chose  had  been  declared  one  of  the  natural  rights  of 
man.  The  Pilgrims  brought  that  doctrine  over  with  them. 
Without  that  right,  society  would  not  be  worth  much;  but 
men  were  always  disposed  to  deprive  each  other  of  it. 
The  right  asked  for  had  been  excluded  to  the  civil  offices 
of  the  land,  but  ask  gentlemen  to  go  a  step  further,  and 
they  say  no.  Atheists  might  hold  any  kind  of  offices,  be 
Executive  or  Supreme  Judge,  but  must  not  be  witnesses. 
It  was  the  business  of  the  Convention  to  correct  this  glaring 
inconsistency  which  existed  in  other  Constitutions.  Mr. 
Grant  cited  the  opinion  of  Chief  Justice  Spencer  of  N.  Y., 
and  other  instances,  to  the  effect  that  persons  destitute  of 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  41 

belief  in  a  Supreme  Being  and  future  rewards  and  punish- 
ments were  not  competent  witnesses,  also,  counter  instances, 
of  decisions  to  admit,  and  against  inquiring  into  religious 
belief.  Mr.  G.  said  he  hoped  this  Convention  would  take 
high  ground  upon  this  subject  and  silence  all  these  disputes 
of  lawyers  and  doubts  of  judges — these  inquiries  into  men's 
belief,  and  exclusions  for  opinion's  sake. 

After  some  further  remarks  by  other  gentlemen,  the 
question  was  taken  on  Mr.  Lowe's  amendment,  and  it  was 
lost — ^yeas  10,  nays  60. 

Mr.  Salmon  proposed  as  an  additional  article  to  the  Bill 
of  Rights,  that  "  Foreigners  who  are  residents  of  this  State, 
shall  enjoy  the  same  rights  in  respect  to  the  possession, 
enjoyment  and  descent  of  property,  as  native  citizens  of 
the  United  States;"  which  was  unanimously  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Hall  moved  to  amend  the  6th  Article,  by  striking 
out  the  words  "  and  was  published  with  good  motives,  and 
for  justifiable  ends,"  which  occurred  between  the  words 
"is  true,"  and  "the  party  shall  be  acquitted;"  so  that  in 
trials  for  libel,  proving  the  truth  of  what  was  spoken  or 
written  would  operate  as  an  acquittal. 

Mr.  Peck  thought  the  propriety  of  this  change  was  rather 
questionable.  Persons  might  have  committed  offences  and 
have  been  punished  therefor,  but  reformed,  become  heads 
of  families, and  respectable;  when  reviving  the  circumstances 
of  their  offence  would  be  deserving  of  punishment. 

Mr.  Hall  said  if  such  a  case  should  occur,  it  would  be 
the  person's  misfortune,  and  one  of  the  consequences  of 
crime. 

The  question  being  taken,  Mr.  Hall's  amendment  pre- 
vailed— ^yeas  39,  nays  29. 

Mr.  Galbraith  moved  to  amend  the  20th  Article  by  adding 
at  the  end,  that  the  Legislature  should  never  pass  any  stay 
law,  or  law  changing  the  remedy  upon  contracts  existing 
at  the  time  they  were  entered  into; — which  was  lost. 


42  Convention  of  i8/f.^. 

Mr.  Ross,  of  Washington,  moved  to  add  to  the  Bill  the 
following  provisions :  No  person  to  be  transported  out  of 
the  State  for  crimes  committed  in  the  State — No  title  of 
nobility  to  be  granted — No  prohibition  to  be  made  of  free 
emigration  to  and  from  the  State; — which  were  severally 
lost. 

Mr.  Blankenship  proposed  an  additional  Article,  as  fol- 
lows: Whereas  a  tax  by  the  poll  is  grievous  and  oppress- 
ive, &c.  therefore  no  such  tax  shall  ever  be  laid  in  the  State 
of  Iowa;  but  all  taxing  shall  be  by  actual  valuation. 

Mr.  Chapman  thought  the  subject  of  a  poll  tax  should 
be  left  to  the  Legislature.  He  was  not  favorable  to  a  poll 
tax,  but  it  might  be  proper  to  lay  one  at  sometime. 

Mr.  Hempstead  did  not  believe  a  poll  tax  to  be  grievous. 
Every  person  who  lived  in  a  Government  was  bound  to 
support  it.  He  was  protected  by  it,  and  participated  in  its 
benefits,  and  should  share  in  its  burthens. 

Mr.  Lucas  thought  it  was  grievous  to  compel  a  man  who 
had  no  property  to  pay  a  tax.  Persons  were  required  to 
work  the  roads  and  perform  military  duty,  which  services 
were  equivalent  to  all  the  benefits  received.  No  principle 
of  taxation  was  so  equitable  as  a  tax  upon  property. 

The  question  was  now  taken  upon  the  proposition  of 
Mr.  Blankenship,  and  it  was  lost — Yeas  27,  nays  39. 

The  Convention  adjourned. 


Tuesday,  Oct.  15,  1844. 

Mr.  Gehon,  from  the  Committee  on  the  Militia  System; 
and  Mr.  Quinton,  from  the  Committee  on  Amendments, 
made  reports. 

Mr.  Hall,  from  the  select  Committee  on  the  subject  of 
persons  of  color  being  permitted  to  exercise  the  rights  of 
citizenship,  made  a  report  adverse  to  such  permission. 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  43 

Mr.  Hawkins  moved  that  the  Convention  concur  in  the 
report;  when 

Mr.  Chapman  moved  that  the  report  lie  on  the  table  and 
be  printed;  which  was  agreed  to. 

The  Convention  resumed  the  consideration  of  the  report 
of  the  Committee  on  the  Bill  of  Rights. 

Mr.  Hall,  renewed  with  some  alterations  the  motion 
which  he  had  brought  forward  in  Committee  of  the  Whole, 
and  afterwards  withdrawn.  He  proposed  it  to  be  added  to 
the  end  of  the  15th  Article,  in  the  following  words: 

"  And  no  person  shall  be  convicted  of  treason  when  the 
act  committed  and  charged  as  treason  has  been  done  in 
accordance  with  the  people  expressed  by  a  vote  prior  to  the 
commission  of  the  act." 

The  question  was  taken  without  discussion,  by  yeas  and 
nays,  and  resulted  as  follows : 

Yeas — Messrs.  Bailey,  Charleton,  Cutler,  Evans,  Fergu- 
son, Galbraith,  Gehon,  Hall,  Hale,  Langworthy,  Olmstead, 
Quinton,  Whitmore  and  the  President — 14. 

Nays — Messrs.  Benedict,  Bissell,  Blankenship,  Brown, 
Brookbank,  Butler,  Campbell  of  Scott,  Campbell  of  Wash- 
ington, Chapman,  Cook,  Crawford,  Davidson,  Delashmutt, 
Durham,  Fletcher,  Galland,  Gower,  Grant,  Harrison,  Haw- 
kins, Hempstead,  Hepner,  Hoag,  Hobson,  Hooten,  Kerr, 
Kirkpatrick,  Lowe  of  Des  Moines,  Lowe  of  Muscatine, 
Lucas,  Marsh,  Morden,  McAtee,  McCrory,  McKean,  Mur- 
ray, O'Brien,  Peck,  Price,  Randolph,  Ripley,  Ross  of  Jef- 
ferson, Ross  of  Washington,  Salmon,  Sells,  Shelleday, 
Staley,  Strong,  Taylor,  Thompson,  Toole,  Williams,  Wright 
Wyckoff — 54. 

So  the  amendment  was  defeated. 

The  Bill  of  Rights  was  then  ordered  to  a  third  reading. 

The  Convention  then  took  up  Mr.  Cutler's  resolution, 
that  the  will  of  the  majority  should  rule  in  the  State  of 
Iowa. 


44  Convention  of  1844. 

Mr.  Hepner  desired  to  know  what  was  the  object  of  the 
mover  of  the  resolution. 

Mr.  Cutler  said  it  was  that  no  officer  should  be  elected 
unless  a  majority  of  the  citizens  voted  for  him.  His  con- 
stituents wished  that  such  a  rule  should  be  adopted. 

The  question  was  taken  on  the  resolution,  and  it  was  lost; 
yeas  27,  nays  41. 

The  Convention  took  up  the  report  of  the  Committee  on 
Suffrage  and  Citizenship. 

Mr.  Gehon  moved  to  amend  the  report  in  respect  to  the 
mode  of  voting,  so  that  all  elections  should  be  held  viva  voce\ 
which,  after  some  litttle  discussion,  was  put  to  the  Conven- 
tion, and  disagreed  to;  yeas  24,  nays  44. 

Mr.  Galbraith  then  moved  to  strike  out  the  i6th  section 
of  the  report,  -which  declares  that  "all  elections  shall  be  by 
ballot." 

The  Convention  refused  to  strike  out  the  section;  yeas 
20,  nays  49. 

Mr.  O'Brien  moved  to  add  to  the  ist  section,  the  follow- 
ing: 

"  That  all  foreigners  who  have  resided  in  the  State  for 
three  years,  and  who  have  declared  their  intentions  to  be- 
come citizens  of  the  United  States,  shall  be  permitted  to 
vote  for  Representatives  and  County  officers." 

Mr.  Chapman  wanted  some  explanation  concerning  the 
above  amendment. 

Mr.  Peck  said  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  this  amend- 
ment would  have  the  effect  to  make  persons  who  were  not 
citizens  of  the  United  States,  electors  of  President  and  Vice 
President.  The  Constitution  declared  that  persons  who  were 
electors  of  the  most  numerous  branch  of  the  State  Legisla- 
tures, should  vote  for  President  and  Vice  President.  This 
amendment  would  be  inconsistent  with  the  Constitution, 
insomuch  as  the  persons  proposed  to  be  provided  for  were 
not  citizens  of  the  United  States. 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  45 

Mr.  O'Brien  said  he  did  not  intend  the  provision  to 
extend  any  further  than  voting  for  State  Representatives 
and  County  officers.  In  the  county  that  he  represented, 
persons  not  naturalized  had  been  subjected  to  the  payment 
of  a  poll  tax,  and  upon  that  ground  the  right  had  been 
asked  for. 

Mr.  Kirkpatrick  thought  it  would  be  admitting  persons 
to  privileges  of  citizenship,  who  had  never  renounced  their 
allegiance  to  a  foreign  power. 

Mr.  Langworthy  said,  when  a  person  declared  his  inten- 
tions he  renounced  his  allegiance  to  any  other  power. 

Mr.  Chapman  said  the  gentleman  from  Dubuque  was 
incorrect :  A  person  declaring  his  intentions  made  no  renun- 
ciation of  allegiance  to  another  country,  nor  did  he  take  an 
oath  of  allegiance  to  this. 

Mr.  O'Brien  thought  the  objections  offered  to  his  amend- 
ment were  trifling.  The  State  of  Illinois  admitted  foreigners 
to  vote  after  six  months  residence.  He  thought  one  oath 
was  as  good  as  two. 

Mr.  Lucas  stated  that  the  words  used  in  the  Constitution 
of  Illinois,  were  '■'■  white  male  inhabitants,"  and  the  same 
words  were  used  in  the  Constitutions  of  Ohio  and  Indiana; 
but  different  constructions  had  been  placed  upon  them.  In 
Illinois  unnaturalized  persons  were  admitted.  It  was  a 
question  of  expediency,  whether  unnaturalized  persons  were 
to  be  admitted  to  vote. 

Mr.  Davidson  was  opposed  to  the  proposition  of  Mr. 
O'Brien.  The  question  was  whether  we  would  allow  any- 
thing different  from  what  the  Constitution  of  the  U.  States 
allowed.  He  was  disposed  to  be  liberal;  but  it  was  well  to 
be  governed  by  the  Constitution  in  transacting  the  business 
of  the  Convention.  We  had  no  right  to  adopt  any  such 
provision  till  the  laws  of  the  General  Government  had  been 
altered.     He  thought  that  persons  who   came  among  us 


46  Convention  of  184^. 

ought  to  be  content  with  the  rights  and  privileges  that 
they  received  by  law. 

Mr.  Gehon  thought  it  was  the  privilege  of  the  State  to 
admit  such  persons  to  vote  as  she  might  choose,  for  officers 
and  members  of  Congress. 

Mr.  Hawkins  differed  with  gentlemen  in  reference  to  the 
oath.  First,  a  declaration  was  made  of  intention  to  renounce 
allegiance  to  any  other  government,  and  become  a  citizen 
of  this.  In  the  second  instance,  they  swear  that  they  do 
renounce  their  foreign  allegiance,  and  that  they  will  sup- 
port the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Durham  said  he  should  have  to  vote  against  the 
proposition  of  Mr.  O'Brien  on  account  of  its  conflict  with 
the  regulations  of  the  General  Government. 

Mr.  Hall  said  the  same  principle  operated  here,  as  in  the 
proposed  case  of  the  admission  of  Negroes;  whether  injury 
would  be  produced  to  the  citizens  of  the  State.  He  thought 
it  would  be  no  injury  to  admit  foreigners  as  was  proposed. 
He  was  in  favor  of  extending  the  principles  of  liberty  wher- 
ever possible. 

Mr.  Fletcher  said  he  should  be  obliged  to  vote  against 
the  proposition,  on  account  of  its  conflict  with  the  naturali- 
zation laws. 

Mr.  Peck  would  be  compelled  to  vote  against  the  propo- 
sition. He  could  not  vote  upon  the  merits  of  the  question, 
as  it  stood.  The  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  United 
States  superseded  the  right  of  the  States  to  make  laws  upon 
this  subject. 

The  question  was  now  taken  by  yeas  and  nays,  upon  Mr. 
O'Brien's  proposition,  and  it  was  lost.  The  vote  was  as 
follows : 

Yeas — Messrs.  Bailey,  Benedict,  Bissell,  Brown,  Butler, 
Crawford,  Cutler,  Evans,  Galbraith,  Gehon,  Gower,  Hall, 
Hale,  Hempstead,  Langworthy,  McAtee,  Obrien,  Olmstead, 
Price,  Quinton,  Ripley,  Ross  of  Jefferson,  Salmon,  Staley, 


Fragments  from   The  loiva  Standard.  47 

Taylor,  Whitmore,  Wright,  Wyckoff,  and  the  President 
—29. 

Nays — Messrs.  Blankenship,  Brookbank,  Campbell  of 
Scott,  Campbell  of  Washington,  Chapman,  Clarke,  Cook, 
Davidson,  Delashmutt,  Durham,  Fletcher,  Ferguson,  Gal- 
land,  Grant,  Harrison,  Hawkins,  Hepner,  Hobson,  Hooten, 
Kerr,  Kirkpatrick,  Lowe  of  Des  Moines,  Lowe  of  Musca- 
tine, Lucas,  Marsh,  Morden,  McCrory,  McKean,  Murray, 
Peck,  Randolph,  Robinson,  Ross  of  Washington,  Sells, 
Shelleday,  Strong,  Thompson,  Toole,  Williams — 39. 

Mr.  Cutler  proposed  to  reduce  the  time  of  residence  be- 
fore being  allowed  to  vote,  to  three  months;  but  the  Con- 
vention would  not  agree  to  it. 

Mr.  Wyckoff  proposed  that  foreigners  who  had  resided 
two  years  in  the  State,  and  declared  their  intentions,  should 
be  permitted  to  vote  for  county  and  township  officers;  but 
it  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  report  was  then  ordered  to  be  engrossed  and  read  a 
third  time. 


IMPROVEMENT  AND   DEBTS. 

The  Convention  took  up  the  reports — one  from  the 
Committee  on  Internal  Improvements,  the  other  from  the 
Committee  on  State  Debts  and  Liabilities. 

Mr.  Hepner  moved  that  the  first  report  be  laid  on  the 
table;  which  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Campbell,  of  Scott,  moved  to  amend  the  second 
report,  by  striking  out  all  that  occurs  beween  the  word 
"  singly,"  at  the  commencement,  to  the  words  "  effect  until 
at,"  &c.  towards  the  close  of  the  report;  and  insert  "not 
necessary  to  defray  the  expenses  of  the  government,  unless 
the  Legislature  shall  have  authorized  and  the  Governor 
approved  the  same,  for  some  single  object,  and  the  same 
not  to  go  into." 


48  Convention  of  184^. 

Mr.  Chapman  desired  to  know  the  object  of  giving  the 
Governor  the  pow^er  proposed  in  the  amendment.  It  was 
equal  to  the  Legislature  and  the  people  both,  in  fact.  If 
the  Legislature  proposed  a  plan,  he  might  destroy  at  once 
what  the  Legislature  had  done,  and  the  people  themselves 
could  do  no  more. 

Mr.  Peck  was  opposed  to  the  change  proposed  by  the 
gentleman  from  Scott.  It  would  give  the  Legislature  the 
right  to  create  debts,  and  borrow  to  pay  it,  and  to  borrow 
money  to  pay  the  interest  on  what  they  had  borrowed. 

Mr.  Quinton  said  he  should  vote  against  the  proposition. 
He  was  pledged  against  allowing  any  such  opportunity  to 
create  indebtedness.  The  Legislature  might  authorize  any 
amount,  if  the  people  would  vote  for  it. 

Mr.  Chapman  said  he  came  pledged  to  vote  against  let- 
ting the  Legislature  create  indebtedness,  without  the  people 
sanctioned  it.  That  was  the  true  Democratic  principle. 
Gentlemen  had  introduced  propositions  for  taking  the  will 
of  the  people  in  cases  in  which  he  could  not  go  for  it.  But 
he  was  not  afraid  to  trust  the  people  with  the  question  of 
indebtedness.  They  had  seen  enough  of  the  proceedings 
in  other  States,  not  to  involve  themselves  in  unreasonable 
liabilities.  It  was  a  wise  provision  to  let  the  people  decide 
upon  questions  of  this  character. 

Mr.  Lucas  said  that  was  an  important  provision  of  the 
bill  that  required  the  Legislature  to  provide  ways  and 
means  for  the  payment  of  any  liabilities  that  might  be  cre- 
ated. It  would  let  the  people  see  how  the  debt  was  to  be 
paid.  He  was  opposed  to  making  the  term  of  a  debt  35 
years,  as  provided  in  the  report  of  the  Committee.  It  was 
more  than  a  generation — and  he  was  opposed  to  creating 
a  debt  for  posterity  to  pay.  Nineteen  years  was  about  the 
lifetime  of  a  majority.  The  existence  of  a  debt  should  be 
limited  to  20  years. 

Mr.    Quinton,  like  the  gentleman  from  Wapello,  (Mr. 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  49 

Chapman)  had  great  confidence  in  the  people.  The  people 
were  right  —  but  political  gamblers  and  speculators  would 
get  up  schemes  that  would  dazzle  and  deceive  them  into 
running  in  debt. 

Mr.  Hall  said  when  he  first  saw  in  the  report  of  the 
Committee  the  proposition  to  submit  questions  to  the  people, 
he  thought  it  a  splendid  spectacle — to  let  the  voice  of  the 
people  decide.  It  excited  his  imagination — the  idea  seemed 
magnificent.  But  when  he  reflected  upon  it  he  became 
opposed  to  the  pohcy.  He  had  confidence  in  the  people — 
but  it  was  a  step  that  struck  at  the  representative  form  of 
our  government.  It  was  taking  from  the  Legislature  what 
had  been  its  right,  and  its  province.  If  this  policy  was  not 
stopped,  the  day  would  come  when  the  Legislature  would 
only  assemble  to  offer  projects  to  the  people.  Dare  those 
who  pointed  to  lUinois,  Ohio,  &c.,  as  instances  of  the 
embarassments  brought  on  by  the  Legislature,  say  that  the 
laws  passed  did  not  receive  the  approbation  of  the  people? 
Like  persons  alarmed,  we  were  fleeing,  not  from  danger, 
but  into  it.  He  asked  gentlemen  to  consider  this.  He  took 
the  position  before  the  people  that  the  Legistature  should 
not  create  a  debt  without  providing  means  to  pay  it.  He 
was  one  that  believed  not  quite  so  much  in  the  first  thought 
of  the  people,  as  in  their  sober  second  thought.  If  the 
Legislature  passed  a  law  that  made  taxes  oppressive,  the 
people  would  not  elect  them  or  any  others  to  do  the  same 
thing  again.  That  was  the  proper  remedy.  He  would  not 
throw  this  matter  into  the  field  of  speculation  and  excite- 
ment, where  gamblers  and  designing  men  might  have  the 
opportunity  of  deceiving  the  people  to  their  ruin.  Mr.  H. 
said  Ohio  had  spent  as  much  for  interest,  as  if  the  completion 
of  her  improvements  had  been  postponed  14  years,  would 
have  given  her  the  improvements  without  a  cent  of  debt. 
After  a  few  more  remarks  from  Mr.  Lucas  upon  the 
subject,  the  Convention  adjourned. 

4 


50  Convetitioti  of  184.4. 

Afternoon  Session. 

The  question  was  taken  upon  the  proposition  of  Mr. 
Campbell,  to  amend  the  report  of  the  committee  on  the 
State  liabilities,  and  it  was  decided  in  the  negative;  where- 
upon, 

The  report  was  ordered  to  its  third  reading. 

EXECUTIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

The  Convention  next  took  up  the  report  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  the  Executive  Department,  on  its  second  reading. 

Mr.  Chapman  moved  to  amend  the  ist  section,  by  strik- 
ing out  the  provision  for  a  Lieut.  Governor,  which  motion 
he  enforced  upon  the  principle  of  economy,  and  the  non- 
necessity of  the  Office. 

The  Convention  refused  to  strike  it  out. 

Mr.  Taylor  moved  that  the  term  of  the  Governor  be  2 
years,  instead  of  4,  as  provided  by  the  report. 

The  motion  was  lost;  yeas  24,  nays  34. 

Mr.  Peck  moved  to  strike  out  the  5th  section,  which 
restricted  the  Governor  and  Lieut.  Governor,  from  holding 
office  two  terms  in  succession;  which  was  agreed  to. 

Mr,  Hempstead  moved  to  amend  the  23d.  section,  so  that 
the  Secretary  of  State  should  be  elected  by  the  people, 
instead  of  by  joint  ballot  of  the  Legislature. 

Mr.  Hepner  said  the  Secretary  of  State  was  certainly  an 
Executive  officer,  and  as  such,  ought  to  be  appointed  by 
the  Governor  and  confirmed  by  the  Senate,  instead  of  being 
elected  either  by  the  people,  or  by  the  Legislature  on  joint 
ballot. 

Mr.  Hempstead  stated  that  his  object  was  to  have  all 
officers  possible  elected  by  the  people,  and  he  conceived 
that  they  should  elect  the  Secretary  of  State,  as  well  as  the 
Governor. 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard,  51 

Mr.  Lucas  said  the  Secretary  of  State  was  strictly  speak- 
ing an  Executive  officer;  he  acted  as  private  Secretary  of 
the  Governor,  and  performed  many  of  the  duties  of  his 
office,  in  his  absence.  He  had  charge  of  the  seal  of  State, 
&c.  He  was  also  intimately  connected  with  the  Legisla- 
ture, took  charge  of  and  preserved  the  public  acts,  &c.,  &c. ; 
and  under  these  circumstances,  he  thought  joint  ballot  of 
the  Legislature  the  most  proper  method  of  electing  him. 

Mr.  Hooten  instanced  Mississippi,  which  he  said  had  the 
most  Democratic  Constitution  in  the  Union,  for  an  example 
of  electing  Secretary  of  State  by  the  people. 

The  question  on  Mr.  Hempstead's  motion  was  taken  by 
yeas  and  nays  and  carried;  yeas  58,  [including  Messrs.  Hep- 
ner  and  Lucas,]  nays  8. 

Mr.  Peck  proposed  making  the  Secretary  of  State,  Sup- 
erintendent of  Public  Instruction. 

This  proposition  was  earnestly  opposed  by  Messrs.  Hall, 
Bailey,  Lucas,  Chapman  and  Shelleday,  in  remarks  upon 
the  importance  of  a  good  and  efficient  School  System  to  the 
State  of  Iowa,  and  the  necessity  of  having  the  Superinten- 
dent of  Instruction  entirely  unconnected  with  any  other 
office,  and  at  liberty  to  devote  his  whole  time  and  energies 
to  the  subject. 

Messrs.  Peck  and  Hooten  thought  the  Secretary  of  State 
could  perform  the  duties  satisfactorily,  and  referred  to  New 
York  and  Pennsylvania,  as  examples  of  similar  arrange- 
ment. 

The  question  being  taken,  Mr.  Peck's  proposition  was 
defeated;  yeas  11,  nays  55. 

Mr.  Langworthy  now  moved  to  strike  out  the  word 
"four,"  wherever  it  occurred  in  the  bill,  and  insert  "two," 
as  the  term  for  which  the  Governor  should  hold  his  office. 
Mr.  L.  did  this,  he  said,  to  test  whether  any  officer  in  the 
State  of  Iowa  was  to  hold  his  office  more  than  two  years. 
It  was  not  progression  to  keep  our  officers  in  without  re- 


52  Convention  of  184.4.. 

election  longer  than  the  older  States.  He  wanted  the 
whole  government  to  be  changed  once  in  two  years. 

The  question  was  taken  by  yeas  and  nays,  and  decided 
in  the  affirmative,  as  follows: 

Yeas — Messrs.  Bailey,  Benedict,  Bissel,  Blankenship, 
Brown,  Butler,  Campbell  of  Washington,  Chapman,  Craw- 
ford, Cutler,  Davidson,  Delashmutt,  Durham,  Fletcher, 
Ferguson,  Galbraith,  Gehon,  Gower,  Hall,  Hawkins,  Hemp- 
stead, Hobson,  Kirkpatrick,  Langworthy,  Marsh,  Morden, 
McAtee,  Murray,  O'Brien,  Quinton,  Randolph,  Ripley, 
Ross  of  Jefferson,  Ross  of  Washington,  Staley,  Strong, 
Taylor,  Toole,  Whitmore,  Williams,  Wright,  Wyckoff, — 42. 

Nays — Campbell  of  Scott,  Charleton,  Clarke,  Cook, 
Evans,  Galland,  Grant,  Hale,  Harrison,  Hepner,  Hooten, 
Kerr,  Lowe  of  Des  Moines,  Lowe  of  Muscatine,  Lucas, 
McCrory,  McKean,  Peck,  Price,  Robinson,  Salmon,  Sells, 
Shelleday,  Thompson,  and  the  President — 25. 

The  report  was  then  ordered  to  its  engrossment  and  third 
reading;  after  which  the  Convention  adjourned. 


Wednesday,  Oct.  16,  1844. 

Mr.  Fletcher,  from  the  minority  of  the  Judiciary  Com- 
mittee, made  a  report,  providing  for  electing  Judges  by  the 
people. 

The  report  on  Education  and  School  Lands  was  recom- 
mitted to  the  committee  that  reported  it,  and  Mr.  Hall  added 
as  Chairman  of  the  committee  with  a  view  to  some  changes 
in  the  report. 

INTERNAL  IMPROVEMENTS- 

The  report  of  the  Committee  on  Internal  Improvements, 
laid  upon  the  table  on  yesterday,  was  called  up  and  one  or 
two  slight  amendments  made  to  it. 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  53 

Mr.  Hall  said  he  wanted  the  yeas  and  nays  on  it,  to  have 
a  test  vote  upon  the  opinion  of  members  as  to  whether  the 
State  in  any  manner  should  borrow  money,  except  to  repel 
invasion.  He  was  opposed  to  it.  He  would  authorize  no 
works  for  which  means  were  not  provided  in  advance. 

Mr.  R.  P.  Lowe  was  entirely  opposed  to  the  report,  and 
to  its  adoption.  It  was  anti-Democratic.  It  virtually  said 
the  people  were  not  able  to  do  their  own  business.  Yes- 
terday the  gentleman  from  Henry  (Mr.  Hall)  was  the 
advocate  of  the  people's  governing  themselves,  and  made 
the  most  liberal  professions  of  confidence  in  their  capacity. 
Mr.  L.  did  not  believe  in  this  blowing  hot  one  day  and  cold 
the  next.  It  should  be  left  to  the  people  to  say  whether 
they  will  borrow  money  to  carry  out  any  particular  improve- 
ment. It  was  not  just  to  require  those  who  might  be  in 
the  State  at  any  particular  time,  to  pay  the  whole  cost  of  a 
great  improvement.  The  work  would  last  for  all  time  to 
come.  The  future  population  would  reap  the  benefit,  and 
it  was  no  more  than  just  that  they  should  bear  a  portion  of 
the  expense. 

Mr.  Langworthy  thought  it  would  not  be  safe  to  take 
Democracy  from  the  gentleman  from  Muscatine  (Mr.  Lowe). 
This  system  of  borrowing  to  make  improvement  would 
breed  speculation  and  log  rolling.  Mississippi  borrowed 
millions  by  the  vote  of  the  people,  and  now  she  was  so 
oppressed  by  the  burthen  of  it,  that  repudiation  seemed  the 
only  remedy.  Railroads  would  be  projected  in  every  direc- 
tion, and  the  people  would  sustain  the  plan,  because  every 
man  would  think  he  was  to  have  a  road  at  his  own  door. 
The  vote  would  be  a  test  one.  A  gentleman  who  voted 
for  the  other  report,  would  move  to  reconsider  the  report. 

The  Previous  Question  was  called  for,  but  the  Conven- 
tion refused  to  sustain  the  call. 

Mr.  Hepner  said  that  the  gentleman  who  urged  this 
report,  presumed  a  great  deal  upon  the  ignorance  of  the 


54  Convention  of  iS^if.. 

Convention.  The  Convention  yesterday  had  voted  to  lay 
it  on  the  table  and  adopt  the  report  on  State  Debts  in 
its  stead.  If  it  was  desired  to  get  at  the  matter  again,  the 
proper  course  was  to  offer  this  report  as  a  substitute  for  the 
other.     The  principle  was  voted  upon  yesterday. 

Mr.  Hall  spoke  of  the  matter  having  been  passed  over 
too  hastily;  said  the  Chairman  of  the  committee  that  made 
the  other  report  had  called  the  Previous  Question.  There 
were  rights  of  the  minority,  and  it  was  Democratic  to  pay 
some  respect  to  them. 

Mr.  Cook  was  glad  the  gentleman  from  Henry,  (Mr. 
Hall)  had  taken  the  course  he  had,  and  that  the  yeas  and 
nays  were  called.  In  forming  the  Constitution,  the  people 
yielded  up  certain  rights  in  order  the  better  to  secure  others. 
It  was  now  proposed  to  call  upon  them  to  yield  up  the  right 
to  create  a  debt.  The  rights  that  they  could  properly  be 
called  to  yield  up  were  only  such  as  were  strictly  necessary 
to  carry  on  the  Government.  If  the  surrender  of  the  right 
to  create  a  debt  was  not  necessary  to  carrying  on  the  Gov- 
ernment, then  they  should  not  be  called  upon  to  surrender 
it.  For  his  part,  he  thought  the  people  could  safely  be 
trusted  with  that  right.  It  was  altogether  a  question  of 
policy,  whether  improvements,  or  any  particular  improve- 
ment, should  or  should  not  be  made. 

After  some  further  propositions  for  amendment,  &c.,  the 
whole  subject  was  laid  on  the  table. 

RBSOIvUTIONS. 

Mr.  Chapman  offered  a  resolution  for  printing  700  copies 
of  the  report  upon  admitting  colored  persons  to  citizenship; 
also  a  resolution  instructing  the  committee  on  Education 
and  School  Lands  to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  securing 
inviolate  to  the  School  Fund  the  500,000  acres  of  land 
granted  to  new  States. 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  55 

The  first  was  laid  over,  the  last  adopted.  We  will  here 
say,  however,  that  on  the  next  day,  (Thursday)  the  Con- 
vention refused  its  sanction  to  the  first  resolution. 


COUNTY  ORGANIZATION. 

The  Convention  next  took  up  the  report  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  County  Organization,  and  consumed  the  remainder 
of  the  day  in  its  consideration.  As  the  proceedings  were 
by  no  means  important  or  interesting,  we  forego  a  detail  of 
them.  The  Convention  adjourned  without  disposing  of  the 
report,  and  on  Thursday  morning  it  was  referred  to  a  select 
committee  of  nine. 


Thursday,  Oct.  17,  1844. 

The  Convention  went  into  Committee  of  the  Whole,  for 
the  consideration  of  the  report  of  the  committee  on  the 
Legislative  Department. 

The  report  fixed  the  ist  Monday  in  January  for  the 
meeting  of  the  Legislature  (with  a  view,  we  believe,  of 
avoiding  the  expense  of  adjournments  for  the  holidays). 

Mr.  Shelleday  proposed  to  amend  by  inserting  ist  Mon- 
day in  December. 

After  considerable  debate,  the  Convention  refused  to 
make  the  change. 

GENERAL  ELECTION. 

Mr.  Lucas  proposed  filling  a  blank  in  the  3d  section  with 
the  first  Monday  in  October  as  the  day  of  the  General 
Election.  Mr.  L.  said  the  ist  Monday  in  August  was  the 
time  of  harvest,  and  was  very  inconvenient.  October  was 
a  time  of  comparative  leisure. 


56  Convention  of  18/f.^. 

Mr.  Bailey  opposed  October  on  account  of  its  being  a 
time  of  sickness.  In  Van  Buren  county,  last  year,  when 
the  election  was  in  October,  300  less  votes  were  polled  than 
the  year  before  in  August.  Besides  October  was  seeding 
time,  &c. 

Mr.  Quinton  opposed  October  for  the  same  reasons  as 
Mr.  Bailey,  and  stated  similar  facts  with  reference  to  the 
diminution  of  the  vote  in  Keokuk  county.  He  was  a  farmer 
and  knew  that  October  was  a  busy  time. 

After  considerable  additional  debate,  the  ist  Monday  in 
October  was  agreed  to  as  the  time  of  holding  the  Election. 

REPRESENTATIVES  AND  SENATORS. 

Mr.  Langworthy  proposed  to  amend  the  4th  section, 
which  provided  for  two  years'  residence,  in  order  to  qualify 
a  person  to  be  a  member  of  the  House  of  Representatives, 
and  insert  instead,  that  he  should  be  a  qualified  elector. 

Mr.  Lowe,  of  Muscatine,  said  a  person  then  might  get 
elected  who  had  not  been  long  enough  in  the  country  to 
become  acquainted  with  the  Statutes. 

Mr.  Langworthy  said  he  wanted  to  test  whether  the 
Convention  had  so  much  confidence  in  the  capacity  of  the 
people  to  govern  themselves.  He  thought  them  capable 
of  deciding  with  reference  to  their  Representatives. 

Mr.  Quinton  said  he  agreed  with  the  gentleman  from 
Muscatine.  Some  restriction  was  necessary.  A  man  who 
had  not  been  in  the  country  six  months  gave  him  a  pretty 
close  tussel  for  a  seat  in  the  Convention. 

Mr.  Harrison  opposed  the  proposition  to  amend. 

Mr.  Bailey  supported  it. 

Mr.  Hall  supported  the  amendment.  When  John  Ran- 
dolph was  questioned  in  Congress  upon  the  subject  of  his 
age,  he  replied  "  Ask  my  constituents."  Mr.  H.  thought 
the  people  would  send  persons  who  were  qualified  to  repre- 


Fragments  from    The  Iowa  Standard.  57 

sent  them.  Placing  such  a  Hmitation  in  the  Constitution 
might  take  from  them  their  first  choice.  They  might  desire 
to  send  a  person  who  had  not  been  in  the  country  two  years. 

Mr.  Grant  said  when  he  heard  persons  making  such  large 
professions  of  love  for  the  people,  he  was  reminded  of  a 
certain  individual,  in  Gil  Bias,  who  got  rich  by  giving  alms. 
If  he  put  the  same  construction  as  the  gentleman,  on  the 
capacity  of  the  people  to  govern  themselves,  he  would  say, 
not  make  a  Constitution  at  all.  It  would  be  an  imputation 
that  the  majority  of  the  people  could  not  determine  any 
matter  correctly.  He  would  not  say  that  a  Representative 
should  be  a  voter  at  all,  or  21  years  of  age;  but  let  the 
people  send  a  Negro  if  they  chose,  or  a  certain  animal  with 
long  ears.  It  was  true  that  some  30  years  ago  John  Ran- 
dolph did  say  [here  Mr.  G.  introduced  a  very  respectable 
imitation  of  the  tone  of  that  celebrated  individual's  voice,] 
"Ask  my  constituents;"  but  that  was  no  argument  against 
a  restriction.  We  came  here  to  make  rules  and  restric- 
tions, for  the  purpose  of  the  better  guarding  the  public 
rights. 

Mr.  Hall  said  that  a  person  who  had  a  right  to  vote, 
should  have  a  right  to  hold  office.  Such  persons  instructed, 
and  their  voice  was  given  by  the  Representative,  if  he 
believed  in  the  right  of  instruction.  But  yet  that  person 
was  not  entitled  to  give  the  voice  himself.  There  was 
something  inconsistent  in  this. 

Mr.  Hooten  thought  the  restriction  not  so  very  anti- 
Democratic.  Such  a  restriction  was  needed  to  prevent 
certain  kinds  of  political  management. 

Mr.  Lucas  opposed  the  amendment. 

Mr.  Hempstead  now  proposed  one  year  as  the  Hmitation; 
which  was  carried,  defeating  Mr.  Langworthy's  propo- 
sition. 

Mr.  Langworthy  proposed  that  Senators  hold  office  for 
2  years,  instead  of  4,  as  proposed  in  the  report. 


58  Convention  of  184.^. 

Mr.  Lucas  said  that  would  destroy  the  object  of  that 
branch  of  the  Legislature,  which  was  that  there  should 
always  be  some  who  had  the  experience  of  former  sessions. 

Mr.  Langworthy  said  he  wished  to  strike  at  that  princi- 
ple. This  was  an  age  of  progression.  If  half  held  over, 
it  would  take  the  majority  twice  as  long  to  get  their  meas- 
ures carried. 

The  question  being  taken,  the  Committee  refused  to 
make  the  alteration. 

THE  VETO. 

The  17th  section  of  the  report  having  been  read,  which 
provided  that  a  majority,  by  yeas  and  nays,  should  have 
the  power  to  pass  a  bill  objected  to  by  the  Governor, 

Mr.  Peck  proposed  to  amend,  so  that  two-thirds  of  the 
members  present,  should  be  necessary  to  the  passage  of 
such  bills. 

Mr.  Hall  moved  to  strike  the  17th  section  from  the 
report.  He  said  he  was  opposed  to  the  Governor  having 
the  veto  power  at  all. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Grant,  the  Committee  rose,  and  the 
Convention  adjourned. 

Afternoon  Session. 

The  Convention  returned  into  Committee  of  the  whole, 
and  the  first  thing  in  order,  being  the  proposition  of  Mr. 
Peck,  to  amend  the  17th  section;  the  question  was  taken, 
and  the  amendment  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Hall  now  renewed  his  motion  to  strike  out  the  section. 

Mr.  H.  said  in  making  this  Constitution  he  wished  to 
throw  off  the  tramels  of  fashion  and  precedent.  He  had  so 
pledged  himself  to  his  constituents.  This  veto  power  was 
a  tramel,  and  an  unnecessary  restraint  on  the  freedom  of 
legislation.     The  law  of  progress  required  that  it  should 


Fragments  from    The  Iowa  Standard.  59 

be  abolished.  The  section,  as  amended,  said  that  the  Gov- 
ernor might  restrain  a  bill  from  becoming  a  law,  unless 
voted  for  by  two-thirds  of  the  Legislature.  This  was  a 
strong  power,  and  the  question  was  whether  it  was  needed 
in  the  State  of  Iowa.  Wherever  the  veto  power  had  been 
used,  it  was  for  the  benefit  of  partizans;  yes,  he  asserted  it, 
it  had  been  used  exclusively  for  the  benefit  of  partizans. 
In  States  where  the  veto  power  has  not  existed,  they  have 
got  along  well;  where  it  has  existed,  it  has  been  a  sort  of 
Pandora's  box,  letting  loose  violence,  excitement  and  col- 
lision. It  was  claimed  to  be  needed  to  restrain  violations  of 
the  Constitution;  the  Supreme  Court  could  do  that.  In 
New  York  and  in  Pennsylvania  the  veto  power  had  been 
abused,  and  carried  to  great  excess.  It  had  there  fallen  in 
disrepute,  and  was  sinking. 

Mr.  Clarke,  [interrupting  Mr.  Hall,]  said  it  was  the 
same  in  the  new  Constitution  of  Pennsylvania,  as  in  the  old. 

Mr.  Hooten  said  it  had  done  great  good  there.  Gov. 
Snyder  vetoed  40  Banks  at  one  time. 

Mr.  Hall.  Yes,  and  that  very  act  of  excessive  applica- 
tion, struck  the  power  breathless  and  lifeless;  and  it  was 
not  till  1837  or  '38,  that  it  was  revived  by  Gov.  Porter,  and 
his  vetoes  had  been  complained  of  by  all  parties.  There 
were  one  hundred  Banks  in  Pennsylvania  at  this  time,  not- 
withstanding the  veto  power.  This  was  called  a  conserva- 
tive power;  it  was  not  conservative,  but  it  was  destructive 
and  oppressive;  and  he  prophesied  that  it  would  be  done 
away  with.  The  day  was  coming  when  it  would  be  no 
longer  exercised  in  this  country.  It  was  an  arbitrary 
privilege  given  to  one  man  to  say  that  an  act  passed  by  a 
majority  of  the  Representatives  of  the  people  should  not 
go  into  effect.  He  was  entirely  opposed  to  it;  and  he 
challenged  any  man  to  give  a  good  reason  for  retaining  it. 

Mr.  Bailey  thought  the  veto  power  was  a  valuable  one; 
it  was  the  people's  power.     He  denied  that  it  was  an  abso- 


6o  Convention  of  184.4.. 

lute  power  of  forbidding.  If  the  Governor  vetoed  a  law 
one  year,  and  the  Legislature  passed  the  same  law  the  next 
year,  however  tyrannical  he  might  be,  he  would  not  have 
the  nerve  to  veto  it  a  second  time.  The  vetoes  of  Gen. 
Jackson  had  been  sustained  by  the  people,  and  were  pro- 
ductive of  important  good.  John  Tyler's  vetoes  even  were 
approved.  The  Governor  was  more  the  representative  of 
the  people,  than  the  Representatives  themselves.  The 
Representatives  were  chosen  by  sections,  and  represented 
local  interests,  and  they  might  continue  to  pass  bad  laws. 
But  the  Governor  had  no  local  feelings.  Yesterday  the 
gentleman  was  in  favor  of  leaving  everything  as  it  was, 
and  was  afraid  the  form  of  representative  government 
would  be  subverted.  To-day  he  loses  his  respect  for  pre- 
cedent. Mr.  B  thought  the  people  had  more  to  fear  from 
the  Representatives,  than  from  the  Governor  with  the 
veto  power.  There  was  danger  that  the  Representatives 
would  absorb  all  power.  They  were  stronger  than  the 
Executive.  If  the  veto  power  had  been  exerted  in  Illinois, 
Ohio,  &c,  they  would  not  have  been  so  much  in  debt.  He 
did  not  know  whether  those  Constitutions  contained  that 
power.  Mr.  B.  said,  that  when  men  deserted  their  princi- 
ples, they  did  not  carry  their  party  with  them.  The 
country  did  not  afford  hardly  more  than  one  instance  in 
which  an  individual  deserting  his  principles,  had  carried  any 
great  numbers  with  him. 

Mr.  Peck  said  the  veto  was  not  positive  power  of  for- 
bidding, but  a  qualified  negative,  to  prevent  hasty  and  ill- 
advised  legislation.  The  feehng  had  taken  strong  hold 
upon  the  people  of  this  country  that  there  was  too  much 
legislation.  The  veto  was  a  conservative  power,  that  did 
not  absolutely  forbid  legislation,  but  suspended  action,  and 
referred  a  question  to  the  people :  perhaps  for  the  first  time : 
for  them  to  consider  it.  It  was  a  Democratic  feature  of 
any  Constitution.     He  thought  its  exercise  had  been  sus- 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  6i 

tained  by  the  people,  and  had  been  conservative  of  their 
best  interests.  The  power  might  be  objectionable  if  the 
Governor  was  elected  for  20  years;  but  where  it  was  only 
for  2  years,  he  thought  there  could  be  no  reasonable 
objection. 

Mr.  Lucas  said,  the  gentleman  from  Henry,  (Mr.  Hall) 
had  thrown  out  a  challenge  for  reasons,  why  the  section 
should  not  be  stricken  out,  and  he  accepted  the  challenge. 
We  were  engaged  in  making  a  Constitution  to  protect  the 
rights  of  the  people.  The  veto  was  one  of  the  instruments 
that  had  been  used  to  defend  the  people's  rights.  Where 
did  we  find  any  account  of  its  being  used  ?  It  was  in  the 
Republic  of  Rome  ?  The  Repubhc  was  divided  into  two 
classes:  the  patricians  and  the  plebians.  The  Senate  or 
Legislature  belonged  to  the  patrician  order,  and  often 
passed  laws  that  oppressed  the  people  or  the  plebians. 
This  caused  the  appointment  of  the  Tribunes  of  the  People, 
who  had  the  power  of  vetoing,  or  forbidding  the  acts  of 
the  Senate.  In  organizing  the  Government  of  the  United 
States,  the  question  arose  whether  there  should  be  an  Ex- 
ecutive. A  committee  was  appointed,  and  after  a  full  con- 
sideration, they  created  the  Executive  office,  and  conferred 
upon  it  the  restraining  power.  The  Executive  was  the 
only  officer  in  the  Government  who  was  completely  the 
representative  of  the  people  in  their  aggregate  capacity. 
Gen.  Washington  vetoed  bills,  not  for  constitutional  reasons, 
but  for  reasons  of  expediency.  He  vetoed  a  bill  appor- 
tioning Representatives  among  the  States,  because  it  con- 
ferred a  Representative  upon  fractions.  The  veto  power 
had  been  exercised  most  salutarily.  It  might  have  been 
exercised  imprudently  at  times,  but  that  was  not  a  good 
argument  against  the  power.  He  wanted  his  friend  over 
the  way  to  be  consistent — come  right  up  to  his  principles 
and  be  consistent.  The  gentleman  had  said  he  wanted  to 
separate  the  powers  of  government:  but  now  he  proposed 


62  Convention  of  184.^. 

to  make  the  Judiciary  supervise  the  Legislature,  and  be 
the  judges  of  law.     He  was  not  consistent  there. 

Mr.  Hall  said  he  had  heard  nothing  from  all  the  gentle- 
men who  had  spoken,  to  change  his  opinions.  Two  of  the 
gentlemen  had  accused  him  of  inconsistency. — That  de- 
pended upon  what  kind  of  a  yard-stick  gentlemen  meas- 
ured conduct  with.  It  was  desired  to  introduce  the  veto 
power  into  the  constitution  of  this  State  because  it  was  a 
party  favorite  in  general  politics.  The  gentleman  from 
Johnson  accused  him  of  inconsistency  in  reference  to  the 
Supreme  Court  deciding  upon  laws.  The  Court  had  been 
the  decider  of  law  always — it  was  the  rightful  judge  of 
the  constitutionality  of  laws.  The  Judiciary  was  sworn  to 
decide,  and  do  justice.  If  a  Governor  was  to  be  as  wise 
as  Solomon  and  as  pure  as  an  angel,  he  would  be  willing 
for  him  to  have  the  veto  power,  to  decide  against  50  or  100 
men.  But  the  Governor  was  fallible,  like  other  men,  and 
he  would  not  set  him  up  a  petty  monarch  in  our  midst. 
The  veto  power  was  derived  from  Rome.  There  it  was 
the  defence  of  the  people  against  the  aristocracy.  But 
here  it  was  reversed,  and  the  veto  was  exercised  against 
the  people,  through  their  representatives,  telling  them  that 
they  should  not  pass  the  laws  that  they  wanted,  under  the 
pretence  that  they  were  to  exercise  a  sober  second  thought. 

Gentlemen  supposed  that  the  Legislature  might  be  cor- 
rupt— he  would  suppose  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  Gov- 
ernor might  be  corrupt,  and  his  supposition  was  as  good  as 
theirs.  Some  gentlemen  were  afraid  of  the  tyranny  of  the 
representatives — he  would  suppose  that  the  Governor 
would  be  the  tyrant;  or  he  would  suppose  that  the  Gover- 
nor would  combine  with  the  Legislature,  and  they  would 
all  be  corrupt  and  tyrannical  together.  A  number  of  per- 
sons were  not  so  liable  to  corruption  and  combination  as  a 
single  individual; — just  as  members  increased  the  proba- 
bility of  corruption  decreased.  The  Legislature  was  safer 
to  be  trusted. 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  63 

This  discussion,  Mr.  H.  said  had  turned  on  national  con- 
siderations; and  gentlemen  were  unwilling  to  forego  the 
pleasure  of  calling  themselves  Democrats,  by  denying 
themselves  the  pleasure  of  inserting  the  veto  power  in  the 
constitution  of  Iowa.  Gentlemen  should  not  let  their  polit- 
ical feelings  carry  them  so  far.  There  was  no  necessity  of 
the  veto  power  here.  He  called  upon  the  Convention  to 
test  this  question  of  necessity,  and  see  whether  any  such 
power  was  needed  in  this  State.  The  people  had  no  par- 
ticular feeling  in  favor  of  the  veto  power. — They  had  got 
the  feeling  as  far  as  they  possessed  it,  from  the  candidates 
themselves.  They  discussed  it;  the  one  party  attacked  it, 
and  the  other  had  to  defend.  There  were  as  good  Dem- 
ocrats in  his  county  as  ever  crossed  the  Mississippi,  and 
they  never  said  veto  to  him  once.  It  would  be  a  blind  ad- 
hesion to  principles  that  had  no  business  in  this  Convention, 
that  would  insert  the  veto  power  in  this  constitution.  He 
repudiated  such  adhesions.  He  stood  in  this  Convention 
free  of  allegiance  to  national  parties.  There  was  some- 
thing due  to  a  minority — a  respectable  minority — and 
where  no  overruling  necessity  existed,  it  was  our  duty  to 
concede  for  harmony,  and  good  feeling.  There  Was  no 
need  of  the  power  in  this  Territory.  Then  do  not  let  us 
press  it  unnecessarily. 

Mr.  Hooten  said,  with  all  his  eloquence,  the  gentleman 
from  Henry  had  not  introduced  a  single  argument  to  con- 
vince him  that  the  veto  power  was  not  a  good  one. — If  it 
had  been  more  largely  exercised  in  Pennsylvania  than  it 
had  been,  they  would  have  been  much  better  off. 

Mr.  Bailey  said  the  gentleman  had  said  a  great  deal,  but 
had  produced  no  argument  that  affected  his  mind.  He 
thought  it  not  improbable  that  the  gentleman  opposed  the 
veto  because  he  came  from  a  Whig  county. 

The  question  on  striking  out  the  17th  section  was  now 
put  to  the  Committee,  and  decided  in  the  negative. 


64  Convention  of  1844. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Lucas,  a  provision  giving  extra  com- 
pensation to  the  presiding  officers  of  the  two  houses  of  the 
Legislature  was  stricken  out. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Shelleday,  50  days  was  fixed  upon  as 
the  period  during  which  the  Legislature  should  sit  and  re- 
ceive the  full  compensation  of  $2  per  day. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Harrison,  the  highest  number  to  which 
the  House  of  Representatives  might  be  extended  was  re- 
duced from  100,  (as  in  the  Report,)  to  72. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  McKean,  the  total  white  inhabitants, 
instead  of  the  white  male  inhabitants  above  21,  (as  in  the 
Report,)  was  made  the  basis  of  representation. 

The  Committee  now  rose,  and  the  Convention  adjourned. 


Friday,  Oct.  i8th,  1844. 

Upon  the  motion  of  Mr.  Grant,  a  committee  of  Revision 
was  ordered,  to  collect,  prepare  and  digest  the  various  re- 
ports of  a  constitution,  preparatory  to  their  third  reading. 
Messrs.  Grant,  Cook,  Lowe  of  Des  Moines,  Lowe  of  Mus- 
catine, Lucas,  Hemstead  &  Bailey  were  appointed  to  that 
duty. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Langworthy,  the  Committee  of  the 
whole  was  discharged  from  the  further  consideration  of  the 
Report  on  the  Legislative  Department,  and  the  amend- 
ments were  considered  by  the  Convention. 

AMENDMENTS  CONSIDERED. 

Mr.  Grant  proposed  the  3d  Tuesday  of  October  as  the 
day  of  general  election,  instead  of  the  first  Monday,  as 
fixed  in  Committee. 

After   considerable  discussion,  Mr.  Grant's   proposition 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  65 

was  agreed  to;  yeas  42,  nays  24.  The  question  upon 
agreeing  to  the  amendments  to  the  17th  section,  in  reference 
to  the  Veto  power,  was  decided  in  the  affirmative,  by  yeas 
and  nays  as  follows: 

Yeas — Messrs.  Bailey,  Benedict,  Bissel,  Bratton,  Brown, 
Butler,  Campbell  of  Scott,  Charleton,  Clark,  Cutler, 
Davidson,  Durham,  Evans,  Fletcher,  Ferguson,  Galbraith, 
Gehon,  Gower,  Grant,  Hale,  Harrison,  Hempstead,  Hep- 
ner,  Hooten,  Langworthy,  Lowe  of  Des  Moines,  Lucas, 
Marsh,  Mordan,  McAtee,  McKean,  Murray,  O'Brien,  Olm- 
stead,  Peck,  Price,  Quinton,  Ripley,  Robinson,  Ross  of 
Jefferson,  Salmon,  Staley,  Strong,  Taylor,  Thompson, 
Whitmore,  Wright,  Wyckoff,  President — 49. 

Nays — Messrs.  Blankenship,  Brookbank,  Chapman, 
Cook,  Crawford,  Delashmutt,  Garland,  Hall,  Hawkins, 
Hobson,  Kerr,  Kirkpatrick,  Lowe  of  Muscatine,  McCrory, 
Randolph,  Sells,  Shelleday,  Toole,  Williams — 19. 

Propositions  to  amend  the  preceding  section  in  respect  to 
the  exercise  of  the  Veto  power,  were  severally  made  by 
Messrs.  Galbraith,  Bissel  and  Cook,  and  all  voted  down  by 
large  majorities.  [  Want  of  space  forbids  our  detailing  the 
proceedings  upon  the  several  motions.] 

Mr.  Chapman  proposed  to  insert  in  the  Report,  as  a 
29th  section,  the  following: 

"No  county  or  counties  shall  be  liable  for  the  expense  of 
laying  out  or  establishing  any  road  or  roads  authorized  by 
special  act  of  the  Legislature." 

After  some  debate,  Mr.  Hall  proposed,  in  lieu  of  the 
above,  the  following: 

"The  Legislature  shall  provide  by  a  general  law,  for  a 
method  by  which  State  roads  may  be  laid  out  and  estab- 
lished, without  the  intervention  of  a  special  law  for  that 
purpose." 

A  very  active  discussion  was  kept  up  during  the  remain- 
der of  the  morning,  upon  the  relative  merits  of  the  above 
5 


66  Convention  of  1844. 

propositions;  during  which,  the  evil  effects  of  road  legisla- 
tion in  past  times  were  feelingly  portrayed,  and  much  con- 
fidence expressed  by  most  of  the  speakers,  that  Mr.  Chap- 
man's proposition  would  prove  a  remedy.  Pending  the 
above  discussion,  the  Convention  adjourned. 


Afternoon  Session. 

After  some  further  debate,  the  question  was  taken  on 
Mr.  Hall's  proposition,  and  it  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  the  proposition  of  Mr. 
Chapman,  and  it  was  agreed  to;  yeas  42,  na3-s  22. 

Mr.  Langworthy  offered  the  following  as  an  additional 
section  to  the  bill: 

"The  Legislature  shall,  at  as  early  a  day  as  practicable, 
pass  laws  to  prevent  the  settlement  of  blacks  and  mulattoes 
in  this  State." 

The  proposition  was  agreed  to;  yeas  32,  nays  21. 

Mr.  Gower  proposed  as  an  additional  section,  a  provis- 
ion against  gerrymandering,  which  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Hall  offered  an  additional  section,  providing  that  in 
all  elections  by  the  Legislature,  the  vote  should  be  viva 
voce;  which  was  agreed  to. 

Several  other  propositions  to  amend  were  made;  but 
they  failed,  and  the  report  was  ordered  to  its  engrossment 
and  third  reading. 

MILITIA. 

The  Convention  took  up  the  Report  of  the  Committee 
on  the  Militia  system. 

Mr.  Hepner  proposed  to  amend  the  Report,  so  that  the 
Legislature  might  exempt  persons  from  military  duty  in 
time  of  peace,  upon  the  payment  of  an  equivalent;  but  his 
proposition  was  not  agreed  to. 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  6*1 

Mr.  Hall  moved  to  amend,  so  that  the  Legislature 
should  not  exempt  any  person  except  on  account  of  public 
services. 

Mr.  H.  lived  in  a  county  where  two  thirds  of  the  popu- 
lation were  of  a  class  that  had  been  exempted,  and  he  had 
seen  the  evil  of  it. 

Mr.  Hawkins  opposed  the  proposition  of  Mr.  Hall.  In 
time  of  peace  he  would  exempt  persons  having  religious 
scruples  against  bearing  arms;  but  in  time  of  war  he 
would  put  all  upon  an  equal  footing. 

After  further  discussion,  Mr.  Hall  withdrew  his  proposi- 
tion and  offered  as  a  substitute,  what  appears  as  the  second 
section  of  the  Report,  [see  another  column,]  which  was 
agreed  to  by  the  Convention,  and  the  Report  ordered  to  its 
engrossment  and  3d  reading.     Adjourned. 


Saturday,  Oct.  19,  1844. 

[Some  proceedings  were  had  by  the  Convention  upon 
the  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Amendments  to  the  Con- 
stitution, which  we  have  laid  over,  in  order  to  get  in  with- 
out division,  the  remainder  of  what  was  done,  touching 
Banking  incorporations.] 

BANKS. 

The  Convention  took  up  the  Report  of  the  majority  of 
the  Committee  on  Incorporations.  [  The  majority  of  the 
Committee  had  went  for  a  Bank  and  branches,  with  re- 
strictions; the  minority  reported  against  any  Banks  what- 
ever.] The  first  clause  of  the  majority  report  having  been 
read,  which  was  in  the  following  words :  "  One  Bank  may 
be  established  in  this  State  with  branches,  not  to  exceed 
one  for  every  six  counties." 


68  Convention  of  iS^f.^. 

Mr.  Hempstead  moved  that  it  be  stricken  out,  and  the 
report  of  the  minority  be  inserted  in  lieu  thereof,  which 
was  as  follows :  "  No  Bank  or  banking  corporation  of  dis- 
count or  circulation  shall  ever  be  established  in  this  State." 

Mr.  Hempstead  said  he  was  opposed  to  all  Banks,  upon 
principle.  He  was  elected  by  his  constituents,  to  go 
against  the  measure  proposed  in  the  majority  report. 

It  was  easy  to  demonstrate,  that  no  principle  ever  de- 
vised by  mortal  man  was  so  successful  to  swindle  the 
people.  He  alluded  to  Banks  of  circulation.  Deposit 
Banks  were  of  a  different  character.  They  did  no  harm. 
There  were  three  kinds  of  Banks;  Banks  of  deposit.  Banks 
of  discount,  and  Banks  of  circulation.  To  this  last  kind  he 
objected.  They  were  founded  in  wrong,  and  founded  in 
error.  They  were  established  wath  an  authorization  to 
loan  their  credit.  Why  should  they  be  authorized  to  do 
this  ?  They  were  permitted  to  issue  their  promises  to  three 
times  the  amount  paid  in,  in  gold  and  silver.  This  issue 
was  altogether  fictitious.  They  did  not  loan  their  money — 
their  gold  and  silver — but  they  loaned  their  paper,  and 
they  charged  an  interest  of  5  or  6  per  cent  upon  their  paper, 
which  was  entirely  worthless.  If  an  individual  charged 
usury,  he  was  punished;  but  bankers  loan  their  credit,  and 
charge  interest  for  two  or  three  times  more  than  they  really 
possess,  and  the  law  protects  it.  This  was  because  they 
were  rich,  and  were  able  to  acquire  an  influence.  This 
was  one  of  the  evils  of  banking.  Another  evil  was,  it  ad- 
ded to  the  mass  of  the  circulating  medium.  All  additions 
to  the  circulating  medium  depreciated  its  value,  and  added 
to  the  value  of  property.  Under  the  influence  of  expan- 
sions, property  acquired  a  fictitious  value;  speculations 
were  entered  into,  men  bought  property  that  they  were  not 
able  to  buy,  and  extravagance  was  engendered.  When 
this  fictitious  circulation  was  withdrawn,  ruin  and  distress 
were  inflicted  upon  community.     When  we  looked    over 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  69 

the  United  States  we  saw  this  exempHfied.  I  care  not,  said 
Mr.  H.,  if  you  incorporate  a  Bank  upon  the  plan  of  the 
minority  report.  You  have  no  security  that  abuses  will 
not  take  place.  The  section  provided  that  the  Bank  should 
not  go  into  operation  until  one  half  of  the  stock  was  paid 
in,  in  gold  and  silver.  How  was  this  fact  to  be  ascertained  ? 
He  had  read  of  a  circumstance  which  took  place  in  Massa- 
chusetts, which  illustrated  this  matter.  A  number  of  Banks 
were  incorporated,  and  a  certain  amount  was  required  to 
be  paid  in,  in  gold  and  silver.  Commissioners  were  ap- 
pointed to  examine  them — to  see  if  the  specie  had  been 
paid  in,  according  to  the  charter.  Well,  the  Banks  not 
having  the  specie  paid  in,  the  necessar)?^  amount  was  bor- 
rowed, and  placed  in  one  of  the  banks — this  first  Bank  was 
examined,  and  reported  all  right.  In  the  mean  time,  before 
the  Commissioners  could  visit  another,  the  specie  was  re- 
moved from  the  first,  and  transported  there;  and  so  on  till 
all  had  been  examined,  and  reported  correct.  Human 
wisdom  Mr.  H.  said,  was  not  able  to  devise  any  plan  to  re- 
strain these  corporations;  they  work  together,  and  work  in 
secret.  The  majority  report  provided  that  stockholders 
should  be  individually  liable  for  the  debts  of  the  Bank.  In 
the  State  of  Michigan,  a  seemingly  thorough  system  had 
been  provided;  the  stockholders  pledged  real  property;  but 
the  Banks  failed,  and  no  property  was  to  be  found.  Banks 
created  no  capital  in  the  country,  they  only  used  what  was 
created.  Miners,  farmers,  and  others,  created;  the  Banks 
only  traded  and  speculated  upon  what  had  been  created. 
Another  objection  to  Banks  was,  they  drove  the  real 
money — the  specie — from  the  country.  Mr.  H.  could  rec- 
ollect the  time,  when  in  this  Territory,  change  could  hardly 
be  obtained  for  a  one  dollar  bill — one  of  those  worthless 
rags  that  came  from  Michigan.  He  was  opposed  to  im- 
posing such  injustice  upon  the  people  of  this  Territory. 
When  there  was  a  gold  and  silver  circulation  there  were  no 


7o  Convention  of  1844, 

fluctuations;  everything  moved  on  smoothly  and  harmoni- 
ously. If  that  principle  was  established  in  the  constitution 
of  this  State,  it  would  raise  it  far  above  the  constitutions  of 
all  other  States.  It  would  be  carrying  out  the  principles  of 
the  great  Democratic  party  of  this  country.  We  ought, 
said  Mr.  H.,  to  exclude  these  corporations  altogether  from 
the  State — say  they  should  have  no  existence  here;  and 
such,  he  hoped,  would  be  the  determination  of  the  Con- 
vention. 

Mr.  Cook  stated  that  he  could  not  vote  for  excluding 
Banks  of  discount  and  circulation  from  the  State;  but  he 
would  prefer  the  minority  report  to  the  other,  in  its  present 
shape.  He  hoped  however,  that  the  majority  report 
might  be  so  amended  as  to  meet  his  views,,  and  for  that 
reason  would  vote  against  striking  out,  and  inserting  the 
report  of  the  minority. 

Mr.  Shelleday  explained  similarly  to  Mr.  Cook. 

Mr.  Bailey,  individually,  was  not  in  favor  of  Banks,  but 
he  was  willing  the  question  should  be  submitted  to  the 
people,  for  them  to  decide  whether  Banks  should  be 
created;  and  he  was  in  favor  of  allowing  an  opportunity  to 
amend  the  majority  report. 

Mr.  Quinton  said  the  whole  concern  of  Banks,  from  big 
A,  down,  were  a  set  of  swindling  machines,  and  now  was 
the  time  for  the  people  of  Iowa  tq  give  an  eternal  quietus 
to  the  whole  concern.  The  celebrated  Philip  of  Macedon 
had  said  that  no  castle  was  so  strong,  but  with  a  mule's 
burthen  of  gold  he  could  make  a  breach  in  it.  Money  was 
power.  It  was  out  of  the  reach  of  human  wisdom,  Mr.  Q. 
said  to  prevent  the  swindling  of  Banks.  If  they  were 
excluded,  we  would  have  a  sound  constitutional  currency. 
He  believed  it  was  not  only  called  for  by  the  Democracy, 
but  the  opposite  party.  Now  was  a  time  to  get  rid  of  the 
evil.  To  use  a  phrase,  he  would  "do  it  up  in  a  rag,  and 
tie  it  with  a  string." 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  71 

Mr.  Fletcher  believed  in  the  doctrine  of  instructions,  and 
did  he  believe  he  was  instructed  by  his  constituents  to  vote 
in  a  particular  way,  he  would  do  so.  He  said  in  the  can- 
vass that  he  was  willing  to  submit  the  question  of  Banks  to 
the  people;  but  he  did  not  pledge  himself  to  anything.  If 
he  had  any  political  ambition,  he  would  damn  himself  by 
the  vote  he  was  about  to  give;  but  he  had  no  political  am- 
bition. He  should  vote  for  the  striking  out,  and  inserting 
the  minority  report. 

Mr.  Hempstead  would  say  to  the  gentleman  from  Van 
Buren,  that  in  adopting  the  present  provision,  the  matter 
would  be  submitted  to  the  people.  They  would  pass  upon 
the  Constitution,  and  this  provision  at  the  same  time.  The 
Whigs  said  they  were  not  for  local  Banks;  at  least,  many 
had  told  him  so  in  his  county.  He  desired  a  United  States 
Bank,  and  no  local  institution. 

Mr.  Ripley  said  he  should  vote  for  the  minority  report. 
He  believed  Banks  had  always  been  a  curse  to  the  country. 
Mr.  R.  related  the  circumstances  of  the  Banks  of  Virginia 
having  closed  their  vaults  in  1836,  when  the  general  suspen- 
sion took  place,  which  act  he  conceived  manifested  a  selfish 
spirit.  Difficulty  also  existed  in  ascertaining  the  condition 
of  their  affairs.  He  believed  Banks  to  be  unconstitutional, 
and  oppressive  upon  the  laboring  classes  of  community. 
He  agreed  with  his  friend  on  his  right,  (Mr.  Quinton)  that 
they  were  swindling  institutions.  Not  long  since  he  had  a 
$10  bill — he  thought  he  had  ten  dollars.  He  took  it  to  a 
Burlington  merchant  to  get  silver;  but  the  merchant  in- 
formed him  that  money  was  not  exchanged  for  silver  with- 
out a  discount.  He  was  obliged  to  lose  perhaps  50  cents 
on  the  bill.  He  had  not  ten  dollars  when  he  thought  he 
had.  If  restrictions  were  made  so  that  Banks  could  not 
swindle  the  people,  he  would  go  for  them  with  all  his 
heart.  But  as  was  said  by  the  gentleman  from  Dubuque, 
there  was  no  getting  at  them. 


72  Convention  of  i8/f.^. 

Mr.  Bailey  said  he  was  not  afraid  to  meet  this  or  any 
other  question  in  the  face;  but  he  wanted  the  matter  of 
submitting  to  the  people  acted  upon;  then  he  would  be  at 
liberty  to  act  as  he  pleased.  He  was  an  anti-Bank  man, 
but  he  knew  many  Democrats  who  were  in  favor  of  Banks 
under  proper  restrictions;  and  he  wished  to  see  if  the  report 
could  not  be  put  in  a  shape  to  make  it  acceptable. 

The  Convention  adjourned. 

Afternoon  Sessi6n. 

[Mr.  Hall  opened  the  afternoon  session  with  a  lengthy 
speech  of  which  we  have  several  pages  of  notes;  but  want 
of  space  forces  us  to  confine  our  report  to  some  of  the  heads 
of  Mr.  H's  remarks.] 

He  said  Banking  was  a  spoiled  child;  it  had  been  nursed 
and  petted  till  it  had  become  corrupt.  It  was  not  the 
nature  that  was  corrupt,  but  the  manner  in  which  it  was 
managed.  He  believed  the  banking  system  to  be  useless 
in  this  country.  He  objected  to  banking,  because  it  con- 
ferred privileges  upon  one  class  that  other  classes  did  not 
enjoy.  He  would  put  it  upon  the  same  footing  as  every- 
thing else;  let  every  man  issue  his  notes,  and  sell  them  for 
money  if  he  could.  Paper  money  in  that  way  would  pass 
only  where  a  note  of  hand  would.  He  believed  when  we 
left  men  upon  a  perfect  equality,  we  took  away  the  sting 
of  banking.  It  was  the  peculiar  privileges  that  made  all 
the  trouble.  He  should  vote  for  the  proposition  of  the 
gentleman  from  Dubuque,  (Mr.  Hempstead)  because  he 
believed  no  banking  privilege  should  be  permitted  in  the 
State  of  Iowa.  This  excepted,  of  course,  banks  of  discount 
and  deposit — banks  which  issue  no  notes  for  circulation. 
He  was  opposed  to  the  plan  in  the  majority  report,  of  pass- 
ing a  law  and  sending  it  to  the  people,  and  have  them  vote 
on  it.     It  would  produce  excitement  and  difficulty.     He 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  73 

would  say  that  acts  of  incorporation  should  go  no  further, 
than  to  give  to  an  association  the  right  of  succession,  so  that 
when  one  of  the  members  died,  the  association  should  not 
dissolve.  We  should  break  down  the  whole  system  of 
special  privileges,  and  do  all  this  business  by  general  laws. 
It  was  now  being  adopted  in  New  York,  a  State  that 
had  more  Bank  capital  than  any  other  in  the  Union.  Sir 
Robert  Peel  had  brought  forward  a  proposition  to  introduce 
a  similar  system  into  England,  and  it  should  be  adopted 
everywhere. 

[In  response  to  something  that  fell  from  Mr.  Hall,  Mr. 
Hempstead  here  went  into  a  statement  of  what  most  readers 
have  already  heard  something  about,  namely,  the  alleged 
means  by  which  petitioners  were  obtained  in  behalf  of  the 
Bank  of  Dubuque.] 

Mr.  Hooten  said  he  should  vote  against  the  motion  to 
insert  the  minority  report.  He  was  not  in  favor  of  banking, 
and  he  agreed  with  most  that  had  been  said  concerning  the 
evils  of  it.  But  the  people  of  Des  Moines,  many  of  them, 
were  favorable  to  the  establishment  of  Banks.  There  was 
a  degree  of  pledge,  at  least  a  general  understanding,  that 
the  representatives  of  that  county  would  not  support  a  pro- 
hibition; and  in  fulfillment  of  that  understanding,  he  should 
vote  against  the  proposition. 

Mr.  Peck  said^  that  when  he  was  a  candidate  for  election 
to  the  Convention,  he  was  a  good  deal  inquired  of  as  to 
what  would  be  his  course  upon  the  subject  of  banking;  and 

1  Iowa  City,  Oct.  24,  1844. 

Sir — In  the  "  Standard  "  of  this  date,  I  am  represented  as  saying,  "  that 
when  a  candidate  for  the  Convention,  and  being  interrogated  as  to  my 
views,  and  as  to  what  mj  course  would  be  in  relation  to  banking,  I  had  in- 
variably stated  that  I  was  in  favor  of  a  general  system,  by  which  the  Banks 
would  be  restrained,  and  the  public  secured,"  t&c. 

In  this,  I  am  misunderstood.  I  said  that  when  inquired  of  on  this  sub- 
ject, I  had  invariably  replied  that  I  was  in  favor  of  providing  in  the  consti- 
tution, that  no  Bank  or  other  trading  corporation  should  ever  be  established 


74  Convention  of  184/f.. 

he  invariably  stated  that  he  was  in  favor  of  a  general  system, 
by  which  the  Banks  could  be  restrained  and  the  people 
made  secure.  Such  a  system  he  believed  his  constituents 
desired.  He  stated  this  by  way  of  explanation,  and  in  order 
to  preserve  his  consistency,  he  would  have  to  vote  against 
the  amendment. 

Mr.  Gehon  said  he  was  sorry  to  hear  that  some  of  his 
democratic  friends  had  come  here  with  their  hands  tied. 
He  was  in  hopes  that  they  were  foot-loose,  and  would  join 
with  the  free  men  of  the  North  in  putting  their  feet  upon 
the  neck  of  this  common  enemy  of  mankind.  But  if  they 
were  instructed,  he  supposed  they  would  have  to  vote 
against  their  principles;  and  the  result  would  be,  that  this 
Democratic  Convention  would  pass  a  Whig  Constitution — 
as  good  a. Constitution  as  any  Whig  or  banker  would  want. 
The  Legislature  could  make  Banks  with  as  liberal  charters 
as  any  set  of  bankers  would  desire — as  liberal  as  the  Miners' 
Bank  of  Dubuque. 

Mr.  Lucas  deprecated  this  appeal  to  party,  and  protested 
against  these  insinuations  about  want  of  Democracy.  This 
Convention,  Mr.  L.  said,  was  elected  to  form  a  Constitution, 
and  we  were  not  sent  here  as  partizans.  This  was  a  ques- 
tion of  expediency.  It  was,  whether,  while  all  the  neigh- 
boring States  had  Banks,  we  would  forbid  them,  and  so  tie 
up  the  hands  of  those  who  were  to  succeed  us.  For  his 
part,  he  desired  this  question  to  be  left  to  the  people.  He 
was  a  Democrat,  and  was  generally  opposed  to  Banks;  but 

by  the  Legislature,  unless  the  stockholders  should  be  liable  for  the  issues  of 
the  Incorporation  as  partners,  and  that  the  Legislature,  should  have  the 
power  of  repeal. 

Supposing  that  you  will  be  willing  to  correct  whatever  may  be  incorrectly 
reported,  I  have  respectfully  to  request  you  to  publish  this  note. 

Respectfully, 

Wm.  Crum,  Esq.  O.  S.  X.  Peck. 

— Ref  tinted  from  The  loiva  Standard^  Vol.  4,  No.  44,  Oct.  j/,  1844. 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  75 

he  wanted  to  leave  the  question  of  their  creation  to  the 
Legislature  and  the  people.  This  he  thought  was  Democ- 
racy. He  should  vote  against  the  amendment,  because  it 
would  not  leave  the  people  to  manage  their  own  affairs. 
It  would  be  tying  up  their  hands  and  forbidding  them  to 
exercise  their  judgment.  The  gentleman  from  Henry,  (Mr. 
Hall)  had  talked  about  special  privileges;  he  desired  that 
none  should  be  granted.  Why,  the  gentleman  himself  was 
a  member  of  the  profession  that  enjoyed  special  privileges. 
Mr.  L.  said  he  would  not  have  said  a  word,  had  it  not  been 
insinuated  that  any  one  who  voted  against  this  amendment 
was  no  Democrat. 

Mr.  Hall  was  surprised  to  find  himself  differing  with  the 
gentleman  from  Johnson.  He  thought  if  he  would  look 
around  upon  the  history  of  the  country,  he  would  perceive 
the  necessity  that  existed  for  making  this  a  party  question. 
It  would  be  a  party  question,  and  the  votes  of  the  Conven- 
tion would  show  it.  Would  the  gentleman  say,  that  because 
Illinois  had  ruined  herself  with  Banks,  that  we  should.?  It 
was  no  reason  for  us  to  have  Banks  because  other  States 
did?  When  we  looked  upon  the  splendid  ruin  in  the  State 
of  Illinois,  we  should  learn  a  lesson,  and  avoid  them.  He 
was  in  hopes  there  would  be  no  division  in  the  vote  upon 
this  subject;  but  he  was  sorry  to  see  that  some  who  had 
long  been  distinguished  in  their  support  of  Democracy  were 
going  to  stop  short.  He  regretted  this.  The  Democracy 
owed  it  to  themselves,  to  vote  against  this  proposition  to 
have  State  Banks.     It  was  due  to  their  high  character. 

Mr.  Peck  could  not  agree  with  the  gentleman  from 
Dubuque,  (Mr.  Gehon,)  that  the  restrictions  of  the  majority 
report  were  as  bad  as  the  old  system  of  banking,  and  that 
the  only  thing  for  Democrats  to  do  was,  to  support  the 
minority  report.  Nor  could  he  agree  with  his  friend  from 
Henry,  that  this  was  to  be  a  test  vote,  that  was  to  prove 
who  in  this  Convention  were  Democrats.     He  thought  he 


76  Convention  of  i8/f./f.. 

would  be  as  much  mistaken,  as  when,  the  other  day,  he 
attempted  to  make  a  test  vote  on  another  question.  If  he 
thought  gentlemen  were  to  be  whipped  in,  in  this  way,  he 
was  mistaken.  Mr.  P.  was  not  entirely  in  favor  of  the 
majority  report,  but  he  should  oppose  the  present  motion, 
in  order  that  that  report  might  be  amended. 

Mr.  Gehon  said  that  if  banking  was  not  the  rock  on 
which  the  two  parties  split  in  this  country,  he  was  mistaken 
up  to  this  age  of  his  life.  He  thought  all  Democrats  were 
opposed  to  Banks;  and  if  gentlemen  were  instructed,  and 
could  not  vote  their  private  views  on  this  subject,  he  wanted 
them  to  place  it  upon  that  ground.  If  this  was  not  to  prove 
who  in  this  Convention  were  Democrats,  he  did  not  know 
what  would,  and  the  Convention  would  be  likely  to  rise, 
and  we  should  not  know  at  all. 

Mr.  Peck  made  some  explanation  of  his  views  of  old- 
fashioned  and  new-fashioned  banking,  as  applicable  to 
Democratic  principles. 

Mr.  Bailey  renewed  his  declaration  of  opposition  to  tieing 
up  the  hands  of  the  people  on  the  subject  of  Banks.  If 
they  burned  their  fingers,  they  would  have  nobody  to 
blame  but  themselves.  He  did  not  think  any  charter  could 
be  submitted  to  him  in  his  primary  capacity  which  he  would 
approve,  but  he  would  not  vote  for  excluding  such  propo- 
sitions being  submitted  to  others;  nor  was  he  disposed  to 
bind  up  the  will  of  posterity  upon  a  subject  of  this  kind. 

Mr.  Hempstead  thought  Messrs.  Lucas  and  Bailey  did 
not  understand  the  matter  correctly.  There  was  no  design 
to  bind  posterity.  The  Constitution  was  open  to  alteration; 
or  the  people  might  refuse  to  accept  it.  There  was  no 
disposition  on  his  part  to  whip  gentlemen  into  the  traces. 
He  thought  posterity  would  thank  us  for  the  restriction. 

Mr.  Lucas  said  he  thought  he  did  understand  the  matter. 
The  provision  read:  "No  bank  or  banking  corporation  of 
discount    or   circulation  shall   ever  be  established  in  this 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  77 

State."  Here  was  a  positive  prohibition.  The  gentleman 
said  the  people  might  reject  the  Constitution, — but  that  was 
not  meeting  the  subject  properly.  To  reject  the  Constitu- 
tion, or  to  amend  it,  were  the  alternatives  presented.  He 
believed  the  people  were  capable  of  managing  this  matter 
for  themselves.  That  was  the  true  Democratic  doctrine, 
and  there  was  to  his  mind  no  mystery  about  it. 

Mr.  Lowe  of  Muscatine,  said  he  hoped  he  should  be 
pardoned  for  making  a  very  few  suggestions  upon  the  pro- 
position before  the  Convention.  He  did  not  propose  to 
consider  now,  as  some  other  gentlemen  had  done,  the  policy 
of  the  banking  system.  He  had  risen  for  a  different  pur- 
pose. He  was  pleased  to  see  some  gentlemen  rise  from 
their  seats  and  inform  the  Convention  of  the  views  of  their 
constituents  upon  this  subject;  and  although  returned  from 
Democratic  counties,  yet  it  would  seem  their  constituents 
would  view  with  disfavor  the  proposed  prohibition.  He 
would  be  glad  if  other  gentlemen  would  give  their  experi- 
ence, and  tell  us  how  their  constituents  felt  in  reference  to 
this  matter.  In  this  way,  the  common  sense  of  the  people 
at  large  upon  this  subject  might  be  collected;  and  the  esti- 
mation in  which  they  viewed  the  banking  system.  Should 
it  be  found,  in  the  judgment  of  the  people,  to  be  a  common 
evil,  and  generally  so  pronounced  and  reprobated,  there 
would  be  some  reason  for  a  constitutional  prohibition.  But 
if  on  the  other  hand,  half  the  people,  or  a  large  and  respec- 
table proportion  of  them,  should  regard  the  banking  sys- 
tem, properly  regulated,  a  benefit,  we  could  not,  legiti- 
mately, and  ought  not,  in  fairness,  to  interdict  its  institution. 
Let  gentlemen,  then,  afford  us  what  light  they  are  in  posses- 
sion of,  touching  the  public  sentiment  upon  this  subject. 
Mr.  L.  said  he  took  it,  that  no  personal  right  should  be 
recognized  and  secured  by  the  constitution  to  the  citizen, 
that  was  not  deemed  fundamental,  and  which  did  not  com- 
mand the  undivided  assent  of  all.     So  no  evil,  or  supposed 


78  Convention  of  184^. 

evil,  should  be  inhibited,  that  was  not  as  universally  con- 
demned. And  had  such  a  condemnation  he  inquired, 
been  pronounced  against  Banks  ?  Would  any  gentleman 
feel  safe  in  the  statement,  that  any  considerable  number 
over  a  majority,  demanded  this  constitutional  prohibition  of 
Banks  ?  He  imagined  not.  But  on  the  other  hand,  he 
felt  well  assured,  that  the  people  desired  no  such  prohibi- 
tion, and  that  with  such  a  provision  they  would  never 
ratify  the  constitution.  In  this,  as  in  all  other  questions  of 
expediency,  the  people  should  be  left  to  think  and  judge  for 
themselves.  And  would  it  be  right,  having  the  power,  to 
deny  them  the  enjoyment  of  this  privilege  ? 

But  the  gentleman  from  Henry,  (Mr.  Hall,)  had  been 
pleased  to  say  to  his  political  brethren,  that  this  was  an  im- 
portant party  question,  and  that  they  must  walk  up  to  the 
scratch  or  be  marked.  Now,  sir,  said  Mr.  L.,  I  have  no 
apprehension  that  this  warning  which  the  gentleman  has 
administered  to  his  political  friends  here,  will  frighten  them 
from  their  proprietj^  for  they  have  not  forgotten  the  fact, 
that  it  was  only  yesterday,  when  the  veto  power  was  under 
consideration,  that  the  gentleman  himself  bolted,  and  refused 
to  go  with  his  party  here  or  elsewhere,  on  the  subject  of  the 
veto;  but  on  the  other  hand,  took  strong  whig  ground,  and 
preached  by  the  hour,  against  the  exercise  of  that  power. 
Was  it  in  accordance  with  the  doctrine  of  his  part}'^?  Why, 
sir,  I  must  say,  I  feel  under  obligations  to  the  gentleman  for 
his  speech  against  the  veto,  and  do  not  know  but  I  should 
have  crossed  over  and  extended  the  hand  of  whig  fellow- 
ship to  the  gentleman,  had  I  not  supposed  it  would  have 
awakened  some  suspicion  as  to  his  democracy.  In  resist- 
ing the  exercise  of  this  power,  he  was  very  lavish  in  his 
praises  of  the  good  sense  and  intelligence  of  the  people, 
and  their  capacity  for  self  government.  To-day,  in  ad- 
vancing this  proposition,  he  says  in  effect,  that  the  people 
are  not  to  be  trusted,  and  would  himself  exercise  a  veto 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  79 

with  reference  to  Banks,  which  he  would  deny  to  the 
Governor. 

Mr.  L.  had  but  one  word  to  say  to  the  gentleman  from 
Dubuque,who  pressed  this  proposition  with  great  earnestness. 
He  told  us,  that  by  the  adoption  of  this  proposition,  the  fact 
whether  the  people  were  for  or  against  banks,  would  be 
tested,  when  they  came  to  ratify  the  Constitution.  But  he 
would  enquire  whether  those  who  should  vote  against  the 
Constitution  were  to  specify  what  parts  of  the  instrument 
encountered  their  disapprobation  ?  Some  might  vote  against 
it  on  account  of  the  veto  power;  some,  because  Atheists  were 
permitted  to  testify  without  being  sworn;  and  others,  again, 
still  for  a  different  reason.  And  should  the  Constitution  be 
rejected,  how  would  a  future  Convention  know  its  rejection 
was  the  consequence  of  the  prohibition  of  banks?  The  truth 
was,  this  matter,  like  all  other  questions  of  the  internal  policy 
of  a  State,  should  be  left,  where  all  the  other  States  of  the 
Union  have  left  it — to  the  sovereign  will  of  a  free  and  inde- 
pendent people.  The  converse  of  this  course,  Mr.  L. 
would  regard,  as  essentially  anti-Republican. 

Mr.  Hawkins  said  he  did  not  wish  to  trouble  the  Conven- 
tion, but  he  could  not  restrain  himself  from  saying  a  word 
or  two  at  this  juncture.  Gentlemen,  said  Mr.  H.,  who  pro- 
fessed to  be  exclusive  Democrats,  were  calling  upon  all  who 
were  Democrats  to  vote  for  this  proposition  to  exclude 
Banks  from  the  State  of  Iowa;  it  was  the  great  question  on 
which  the  parties  were  divided.  No,  said,  another  portion, 
it  is  not  democratic — there  is  no  democracy  about  it ;  and  it 
has  never  been  a  party  question :  This  placed  us  who  are 
Whigs  in  an  embarassing  position.  How  were  we  to  know 
which  way  to  vote?  How  should  we  who  professed  to  be  the 
true  Democrats,  decide  between  the  contending  factions? 
Mr.  H.  said  he  had  a  rule  that  should  govern  him.  He  had 
been  taught,  when  a  boy,  to  pay  great  respect  to  old  per- 
sons, men  of  experience;  and  now  he  found  that  the  most 


8o  Convention  of  18^4. 

venerable  gentleman  in  the  Convention,  who  called  himself 
a  Democrat,  and  had  been  so  for  50  or  60  years;  said,  sub- 
mit this  question  to  the  people.  He  would  go  with  the 
gentleman  from  Johnson,  in  preference  to  his  colleague  from 
Henry,  who  had  not  more  than  half  his  age  and  experience. 
One  gentleman  had  yesterday  pointed  to  the  Constitution 
of  Mississippi  as  the  very  model  of  Democrac3^  There 
everything  was  submitted  to  the  people.  Had  that  prohib- 
ited Banks,  or  prohibited  the  question  from  being  submitted 
to  the  people? — or  has  any  other  Democratic  State?  No — 
not  one  could  be  pointed  to.  And  were  we  to  prohibit  all 
Banks  and  tie  up  the  people's  hands,  while  other  States 
were  issuing  paper  and  sending  it  among  us,that  we  could  ex- 
ercise no  control  over?  He  would  venture  to  say,  that  four- 
fifths  of  the  people  of  Henry  county  were  in  favor  of  a 
judicious  banking  system,  and  if  they  were  here,  in  place  of 
his  colleague  and  himself,  would  vote  against  this  proposi- 
tion. 

Here,  said  Mr.  H.,  was  a  majority  report,  (and  Demo- 
crats always  pretended  to  manifest  great  respect  for 
majorities)  and  it  was  proposed  to  strike  it  all  out  and  insert 
a  minority  report,  that  forbid  all  that  the  other  provided 
for.  This  had  set  the  whole  Democracy  in  commotion. 
Here  were  the  provisions — about  two  lines  of  each — one 
said,  in  very  democratic  phrase,  no  doubt,  "  No  bank  or 
banking  corporation  shall  ever  be  established  in  this  State;" 
the  other  said  "One  bank  may  be  established  in  this  State 
with  branches  not  to  exceed  one  for  every  six  counties;" 
and  out  of  these  little  scraps  grew  all  the  trouble  to  democ- 
racy. It  was  really  amusing,  and  he  could  not  help  laugh- 
ing at  it.  He  did  not  know  where  it  was  all  to  end,  or 
whether  the  democracy  would  ever  again  discover  the  true 
democratic  scent.  If  they  were  so  far  lost  that  they  could 
not  recover  themselves,  he  would  advise  them  to  follow  the 
Whigs,  who  were  true  democrats,  and  intended  to  vote  for 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  8i 

letting  the  people  have  a  chance  to  say  something  about 
this  matter. 

Mr.  Cutler  said  he  would  not  detain  the  Convention  one 
half  minute.  He  would  simply  say  that  he  should  vote 
against  the  proposition,  because  in  doing  so  he  conceived 
that  he  should  express  the  will  of  three-fourths  of  the  people 
of  Van  Buren  county.  If  that  was  treason  to  the  Demo- 
cratic party,  make  the  most  of  it. 

The  question  was  now  put  to  the  Convention  on  Mr. 
Hempstead's  proposition,  and  decided  in  the  negative,  as 
follows : 

Yeas — Messrs.  Benedict,  Bratton,  Clarke,  Crawford, 
Evans,  Fletcher,  Galland,  Gehon,  Hall,  Hempstead,  Lang- 
worthy,  McKean,  O'Brien,  Olmstead,  Quinton,  Ripley  and 
Ross  of  Jefferson — 17. 

Nays  —  Messrs.  Bailey,  Bissell,  Blankenship,  Brown, 
Brookbank,  Campbell  of  Scott,  Campbell  of  Washington, 
Charleton,  Chapman,  Cook,  Cutler,  Davidson,  Delashmutt, 
Felkner,  Ferguson,  Galbraith,  Grant,  Hale,  Hawkins,  Hep- 
ner,  Hobson,  Hooten,  Kirkpatrick,  Lowe  of  Des  Moines, 
Lowe  of  Muscatine,  Lucas,  Marsh,  Mordan,  McAtee,  Mc- 
Crory,  Murray,  Peck,  Price,  Randolph,  Robinson,  Ross 
of  Washington,  Salmon,  Sells,  Shelleday,  Staley,  Strong, 
Taylor,  Thompson,  Toole,  Whitmore,  Williams,  Wright, 
Wyckoff  and  Mr.  President — 51. 


Monday,  Oct.  21,  1844. 

Mr.  Fletcher,  from  the  Committee  on  Revenue,  made  a 
report. 

Leave  of  absence  was  granted  to  Messrs.  Gehon  and 
Lowe  of  Muscatine. 

The  Convention  resumed  the  consideration  of  the  report 
6 


82  Convention  of  1844. 

of  the  Committee  on  Corporations,  so  far  as  it  related  to 
Banks,  namely: 

"Sec.  I.  One  bank  may  be  established  in  this  State 
with  branches,  not  to  exceed  one  for  every  six  counties. 

"Rule  1st.  The  bill  establishing  said  bank  and  branches, 
before  the  same  can  become  a  law,  shall  be  passed  by  a 
majority  of  the  members  elected  to  both  houses  of  the 
legislative  assembly,  be  approved  by  the  governor,  and  at 
the  next  general  election  be  submitted  to  the  people  for 
their  approval  or  rejection;  and  if  approved  by  a  majority 
of  the  qualified  electors  within  this  State,  the  same  shall 
become  a  law,  at  such  time  as  the  legislative  assembly 
shall  prescribe. 

"Rule  2d.  Such  bank  or  branches  shall  not  commence 
operations  until  half  of  the  capital  stock  subscribed  for,  be 
actually  paid,  in  gold  or  silver;  which  amount  in  no  case 
shall  be  less  than  one  hundred  thousand  dollars. 

"Rule  3d.  Such  bank  or  branches  shall  not  have  power 
to  issue  any  bank  note  or  bill  of  a  less  denomination  than 
ten  dollars. 

"Rule  4th.  The  remedy  for  collecting  debts,  shall  be 
reciprocal  for  and  against  such  bank  and  its  branches. 

"Rule  5th.  The  stockholders  shall  be  liable  respectively, 
for  the  debts  of  said  bank  and  branches. 

"Rule  6th.  In  case  said  bank  or  branches  shall  neglect 
or  refuse  to  pay  on  demand,  any  bill,  note,  or  obligation 
issued  by  the  corporation  according  to  the  promise  therein 
expressed,  such  neglect  or  refusal  shall  be  a  forfeiture  of 
their  charter,  and  put  an  end  to  their  corporate  powers  and 
privileges. 

"Rule  7th.  The  legislative  assembly  shall  have  power 
to  alter,  amend,  or  repeal  such  charter,  whenever  in  their 
opinion,  the  public  good  may  require  it." 

Mr.  Chapman  moved  to  strike  out  all  of  the  first  section, 
after  the  first  rule. 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  83 

Mr.  C.  said,  the  first  rule  (that  charters  be  submitted  to 
the  people,)  he  would  be  willing  to  vote  for;  it  was  a  salu- 
tary provision.     But  he  was  unwilling  to  vote  for  the  other 
rules.     This  submission  to  the  will  of  the   people  he   con- 
sidered the  best  method  to  secure  a  sound   currency,  if  a 
sound  currency  was  to  be  obtained  from  Banks.     The  vote 
of  Saturday  rendered  it  certain  that  the  people  of  this  State 
would  not  be   restricted  from  the  establishment  of  Banks. 
Mr.  C.  said  he  was  no  friend  of   State    Banks,  and  never 
had  been  friendly  to  them;  but  he  would  not  say,  if  a  mem- 
ber of  a  Legislature,  that  he  would  not  vote  for  Banks  un- 
der proper  restrictions.     He  would  go   for  even  greater 
restrictions  than  were  contained  in  this  report.     He  would 
say,  with  a  venerable  friend,  that  he  was  in  favor  of  Bank 
reform.     The   people   might  not  want  to  establish  a  Bank 
in  five  or  more  years;  but  when  they  did,  they  should  have 
the  right  to  do  it.     Those  who  were  called  upon  to  vote 
for  the  minority  report  seemed  to  quail  under  the  respon- 
sibility that  they  would  have  been  taking  upon  themselves 
to  do  so.     Although  their  individual  wishes  might  be  in 
favor  of  the  prohibition  contained  in  that  report,  yet  they 
felt  the  conviction  that  their  constituents  were  opposed  to 
any  such  prohibition;  and  they  refused  to  put  it  in  the  Con- 
stitution.    Mr.  C.  said  he  did  not  propose  to  strike  out  all 
these  restrictions,  because  he  was  in  principle  altogether 
opposed  to  them,  but  because  he  desired  to  give  freedom 
to  legislation.     The   Legislature  was  the  proper  body  to 
devise  special  restrictions.     No  plan   of  restrictions    that 
could  be  inserted  in  a   Constitution,  would  be  sufficient  to 
procure  safety.     Almost  every  gentleman  in  the  Conven- 
tion had  some  different  plan  in  his  mind,  to  control  Banks; 
it   would  take   a  committee  to  arrange    and  digest  them. 
One  of  these   plans  was  unlimited  liability  of  the  stock- 
holders.    This  he  was  opposed  to,  for  the  reason  it  would 
operate  to  prevent  men   of  limited  means,  laborers,  &c.. 


84  Convention  of  184.4. 

from  investing  their  surplus  funds  in  that  business.  Only 
men  of  great  means,  who  could  control  the  whole  manage- 
ment of  the  business,  would  invest  in  banking.  This  would 
contribute  to  the  insecurity  of  the  business.  Mr.  C.  read 
some  statistics,  going  to  show  that  the  stock  of  the  Eastern 
Banks  was  to  a  great  extent  held  by  females,  laborers, 
small  dealers,  &c.  He  said  he  believed  it  was  demon- 
strated that  the  greater  the  extent  to  which  the  introduc- 
tion of  small  capitalists  among  the  stockholders  was  en- 
couraged, the  more  secure  were  the  Banks. 

Mr.  Hepner  said  the  gentleman  from  Wapello,  (Mr. 
Chapman)  might  think  as  he  pleased  of  the  restrictions; 
the  committee  deemed  them  all  to  be  necessary.  He 
thought  if  each  was  considered  by  itself,  they  would  not  be 
found  so  very  unsatisfactory. 

Mr.  Bailey  said  he  conceived  banking  generally  to  be 
injurious.  As  it  existed  in  the  United  States  it  had  proved 
so.  In  great  commercial  cities,  some  of  the  Banks  had 
been  sound  and  useful;  but  he  presumed  they  were  under 
good  restrictions.  The  gentleman  from  Wapello  had  said 
he  was  in  favor  of  placing  restrictions  upon  Banks;  but  he 
wanted  to  put  it  off.  That  was  the  Whig  policy — to  put 
off  the  restrictions.  The  gentleman  wanted  the  Legislature 
place  the  restrictions  on  the  Banks.  That  method  was  not 
so  durable  as  putting  it  in  the  Constitution.  The  restric- 
tions were  all  acknowledged  to  be  wholesome,  and  desired 
by  the  people,  and  he  wished  to  place  them  in  the  Con- 
stitution. The  gentleman  and  his  friends  probably  thought 
that  if  the  matter  was  delayed  a  while,  their  party  might 
get  the  ascendancy,  and  in  a  time  of  excitement  throw  the 
doors  open  entirely.  Mr.  B.  said  a  portion  of  the  Demo- 
cratic party  was  in  favor  of  having  a  hard-money  currency. 
He  was  one  of  that  number.  But  a  great  portion  of  the 
party  were  in  favor  of  Banks  under  suitable  restrictions. 
He  came  here  to  legislate  for  the  people,  and  intended  to 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  85 

consult  their  wishes.  The  gentleman  from  Wapello  said 
he  was  in  favor  of  Bank  reform;  what  was  the  gentleman 
willing  to  do  in  helping  on  this  reform?  Here  was  a  pro- 
vision that  the  Legislature  might  alter,  amend  or  repeal  a 
charter,  so  that  if  abuse  took  place  it  might  be  stopped 
promptly.  Why,  if  the  gentleman  was  for  reform,  would 
he  not  agree  to  this?  Another  provision  was,  if  they  re- 
fused to  pay  their  bills  on  demand,  they  should  forfeit  their 
charter.     Why  not  support  this? 

Mr.  Langworthy  thought  the  restrictions  were  all  very 
salutary,  and  in  entire  conformity  to  the  monster  Bank 
that  was  proposed  to  be  created  on  this  floor.  They  were 
nearly  the  same  as  were  contained  in  the  charter  of  the 
Miners'  Bank  of  Dubuque.  Here  Mr.  L.  went  through  a 
comparison  of  the  rules  of  the  present  proposition,  and  the 
different  clauses  in  the  charter  of  the  Miners'  Bank;  the 
conclusion  of  which  was  that  this  was  no  better,  except 
in  the  point  of  individual  liability. 

Mr.  Peck  thought  the  restrictions  were  not  such  as  they 
ought  to  be;  but  he  should  not  vote  for  striking  them  out. 
He  would  quote  to  the  gentleman  from  Wapello  an  author- 
ity that  he  presumed  would  be  pertinent  with  the  gentle- 
man and  his  party,  upon  the  subject  of  individual  liability. 
By  an  act  of  the  Legislature  of  Massachusetts,  1835,  it  was 
provided  that  thereafter  the  Legislature  might  alter  or  re- 
peal a  Bank  or  Company  charter,  and  the  stockholder  it 
was  declared  should  be  individually  liable.  He  would  cite 
to  another  authority  that  he  presumed  would  also  be  con- 
sidered pertinent  authority  with  Whigs.  Chief  Justice 
Parker  of  the  same  State,  according  to  the  Massachusetts 
Reports,  decided  that  the  stockholders  of  manufacturing 
and  other  corporations,  under  some  circumstances  were  in- 
dividually liable  for  the  debts  of  the  corporation.  Mr.  P. 
would  rather  see  all  the  other  restrictions  struck  out  than 
that  of  individual  liability.     But  he  desired  to  retain  all. 


86  Convention  of  184^. 

The  New  York  Reports  contained  authorities  to  the  same 
effect  as  those  of  Massachusetts.  Taking  the  pohtical 
complexion  of  the  State  and  Judiciary,  he  presumed  the 
gentleman  from  Wapello  would  not  complain  of  those  au- 
thorities. If  the  restriction  in  question  was  struck  out,  it 
would  be  a  death-blow  to  the  entire  plan,  and  we  should 
have  no  restrictions  at  all. 

Mr.  Quinton  made  an  explanation,  that  he  had  intended 
to  vote  for  striking  out  all  the  restrictions;  but  he  had 
changed  his  mind  from  hearing  the  arguments  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Wapello,  who  said  that  if  a  member  of  the 
Legislature  he  would  vote  for  even  greater  restrictions. 
This  convinced  him  that  the  restrictions  might  as  well  be 
put  in  the  Constitution.  He  was  in  favor  of  all  the  restric- 
tions, and  if  the  gentleman  from  Wapello  was  in  favor  of 
Bank  reform,  why  not  go  for  them,  at  this  time? 

Mr.  Sells  said  he  was  in  favor  of  striking  out  the  restric- 
tions, after  the  first  rule,  because  that  contained  a  provision 
to  refer  a  charter  to  the  people,  and  that  he  thought  was 
sufficient.  The  people  could  then  form  their  judgment  of 
the  sufficiency  or  non-sufficiency  of  the  restrictions.  Three- 
fourths  of  the  people  of  Muscatine  county  were  in  favor  of 
having  a  Bank  or  Banks,  but  they  desired  the  matter  to  be 
submitted  to  a  vote.  The  gentleman  from  Van  Buren 
wanted  the  matter  submitted  to  the  people;  but  at  the  same 
moment  he  proposes  to  put  a  clog  upon  the  people,  and 
tell  them  how  much  or  how  little  they  should  do.  Mr.  S. 
was  in  favor  of  restrictions,  and  strong  ones,  and  could 
point  out  others  than  those  on  the  report.  But  should  we 
require  the  Legislature  to  impose  all  these  restrictions  that 
we  might  be  able  to  suggest?  It  was  asserted  on  this 
floor  that  this  principle  of  Bank  and  anti-Bank  divided  the 
parties,  and  that  the  Democrats  were  the  opposers  of 
Banks.  Mr.  Sells  here  went  into  a  historical  and  statisti- 
cal enquiry  into  the  claims  of  the  Democracy  to  anti-Bank- 


Pragments  from    The  Iowa  Standard.  87 

ism,  and  brought  forward  the  two  Banks  of  the  United 
States,  and  a  great  multitude  of  State  institutions,  as  in- 
stances of  the  participation  of  the  Democratic  party  in  the 
creation  and  fostering  of  Banks.  He  thought  they  would 
not  repudiate  Gen.  Washington  from  the  ranks  of  Democ- 
racy, and  pointed  out  the  participation  of  Jefferson  in  the 
circumstances  of  the  creation  and  extension  of  the  first  U. 
S.  Bank.  Mr.  Jefferson  in  his  written  opinion  delivered  to 
Washington,  said:  "If  the  President's  mind  was  so  clearly 
balanced  on  the  subject  that  he  could  not  well  decide — if 
the  objections  I>ro  and  con  hang  so  even  as  nearly  to  bal- 
ance the  scales,  respect  for  the  opinions  of  Congress  would 
require  that  he  should  yield  his  sanction  to  the  measure." 
After  this  time,  Mr.  Jefferson  approved  the  act  establishing 
a  branch  of  the  U.  States  Bank  at  New  Orleans,  and  other- 
wise lent  his  sanction  to  the  institution.  The  Democrats  of 
those  days  formed  a  vast  majority  of  the  supporters  of  the 
U.  S.  Bank.  The  measure  then  was  decidedly  democratic. 
But  democratic  principles  seemed  to  have  changed.  The 
gentleman  from  Henry  had  appealed  to  the  Democrats  to 
come  up  to  the  mark  on  this  question;  it  was  the  one  which 
separated  the  parties.  But  if  Mr.  S.  knew  anything  about 
it,  the  party  was  divided  on  this  subject,  while  on  that  of 
the  veto  they  were  unanimous. 

Mr.  S.  expressed  his  opposition  to  the  principle  of  un- 
conditional repeal,  embodied  in  the  report  of  the  committee. 
It  was  founded  in  wrong  and  injustice.  It  was  said  out  of 
doors  that  these  restrictions  were  to  be  a  modest  prohibi- 
tion of  all  Banks.  This  was  unfair,  uncandid  dealing;  it 
was  an  attempt  to  pull  wool  over  the  eyes  of  the  people, 
who  desired  the  opportunity  of  themselves  deciding  the 
question  of  introducing  Banks  into  the  State.  He  should 
vote  for  striking  out  the  restrictions. 

Mr.  Hall  claimed  the  charity  of  the  Convention  while  he 
endeavored  to  explain  his  position.     His  desire  had  been 


88  Convention  of  184.4. 

not  to  attack  any  branch  of  business,  but  to  leave  all  upon 
the  same  footing — the  man  who  made  paper  money,  the 
man  who  split  rails,  and  the  man  who  sold  goods.  This 
was  what  he  understood  to  be  true  Democracy,  on  the 
principle  that  he  had  asked  gentlemen  to  sustain.  But  he 
had  been  left  in  a  lean  minority.  The  Convention  had 
said  that  dealers  in  money  should  have  privileges  above 
others.  This  placed  him  in  a  peculiar  position,  and  he 
would  prefer  not  to  vote  upon  the  question  now.  The 
Legislature  was  not  to  be  left  at  liberty  to  act  upon  the 
subject  independently,  but  questions  of  creating  Banks  were 
to  be  left  to  the  people.  This  was  a  deception  and  a  gilded 
pretension  that  had  no  substance.  The  people  were  not  to 
be  entrusted  unless  they  had  responsible  endorsers.  The 
whole  subject  was  not  to  be  given  to  them — a  small  part 
was  to  be  submitted  for  them  to  decide  upon.  This  was 
an  insult.  If  they  were  competent  to  decide  upon  one  point 
they  were  competent  to  decide  upon  all.  There  was  an 
inconsistency  in  this  plan.  It  was  like  the  rotten  borough 
system  of  England,  pretending  to  give  a  loaf  but  really 
giving  no  bread.  The  whole  plan  was  an  innovation  upon 
our  Republican  form  of  government.  If  we  must  have 
special  privileges  granted,  he  would  be  for  limiting  them  as 
much  as  possible;  but  he  should  oppose  this  plan  of  fixing 
restrictions.  If  this  subject  was  to  be  submitted  to  the 
people,  let  them  decide  upon  what  were  proper  restrictions. 
In  reply  to  previous  speakers,  Mr.  A.  said,  when  the  Dem- 
ocrats found  Banks  had  proved  to  be  rotten,  they  dropped 
them,  and  would  have  nothing  to  do  with  them;  and  it  was 
just  when  they  proved  themselves  rotten  and  worthless, 
that  the  Whig  party  took  them  up,  and  they  had  nursed 
them  ever  since.  Gentlemen  talked  about  well  regulated 
Banks;  they  might  as  well  talk  about  white  black  birds. 
Some  Banks,  perhaps,  had  never  failed,  and  they  were 
called  well-regulated ;  but  they  were  only  well  regulated  to 


Fragments  fro7n   The  Iowa  Standard.  89 

defraud  and  plunder  the  public.  They  were  shaving  shops 
from  beginning  to  end,  and  as  such  ought  to  be  denounced 
and  put  down.  The  evil  could  be  done  away  by  changing 
the  general  law  of  corporations;  when  you  reduced  all  to 
an  equality,  you  did  away  with  the  evil.  It  was  said  that 
females,  orphans,  &c.  were  stockholders,  and  participated 
in  the  dividends  of  Banks;  but  it  was  not  told  how  many 
widows  and  orphans  had  been  ruined.  If  they  should  come 
to  this  place,  this  town-plat  would  not  be  large  enough  to 
contain  them.  Where  a  widow  had  received  one  dollar  in 
dividends,  she  had  been  swindled  out  of  ten  dollars.  It  is 
said,  put  restrictions  on  the  Banks;  but  this  very  thing 
proved  that  they  enjoyed  special  privileges.  You  might 
restrict  them  down  from  one  point  to  another:  but  so  long 
as  you  could  restrict,  the  special  privilege  still  remained. 

Mr.  Hawkins  said  the  Whigs  were  charged,  as  a  party, 
with  being  in  favor  of  all  the  rotten  Banks  in  the  United 
States — it  was  asserted  that  they  had  fostered  and  cherished 
them,  as  soon  as  they  were  found  to  be  worthless  and  rot- 
ten. They  had  done  this  in  contradiction  to  the  Democrats 
who  had  repudiated  them.  Now,  what  were  Whigs? — 
were  they  not  like  other  men.''  Why  then  should  they 
cherish  what  was  opposed  to  their  interests — what  was  self- 
demonstrated  to  be  rotten  and  worthless?  He  was  a  farmer 
— why  should  he,  more  than  his  neighbor,  cherish  what 
was  an  injury  to  him?  There  was  a  difference  about  this 
matter,  no  doubt;  but  it  was  because  all  men  did  not  see 
alike,  or  understand  their  interests  in  the  same  way.  He 
voted  differently  from  his  friend  on  the  right,  on  this  sub- 
ject, but  on  other  subjects,  he  often  voted  with  him.  On 
some  subjects  they  thought  aHke,  but  on  others  they  differed 
— and  both  all  the  while  were  equally  honest.  The  Whigs 
were  in  favor  of  leaving  this  matter  to  the  action  of  future 
Legislatures,  and  the  people.  When  a  proposition  was 
made  for  a  charter,  let  the  details  be  decided  by  them,  with 


po  Convention  of  1844. 

all  the  lights  before  them  at  that  time.  They,  as  a  minority, 
opposed  this  plan  of  putting  detailed  restrictions  in  the  con- 
stitution; but  when  a  vote  was  taken,  they  would  submit. 
They  would  not  be  i  slipping  around,  when  the  vote  was  to 
be  taken,  whipping  in  the  disaffected.  They  had  no  plan 
or  concert;  but  acted  upon  a  settled  principle.  He  did  not 
even  know,  before  his  friend  from  Wapello  made  his  motion, 
that  he  was  intending  to  make  such  a  motion;  but  he  should 
vote  for  it,  because  he  believed  it  was  right.  The  State  of 
Mississippi,  which  was  the  pattern  of  everything  that  was 
Democratic,  had  pursued  a  different  course  from  the  one 
proposed  here.  A  State  Bank  with  five  branches  was 
authorized,  but  no  restrictions  were  placed  upon  it  in  the 
constitution.  He  was  not  a  Bank  man,  and  all  who  knew 
him  would  bear  him  out  in  that  observation. — He  was 
opposed  to  local  Banks,  and  in  favor  of  a  good  sound 
National  Bank,  that  would  supply  all  our  wants;  and  he 
hoped  to  live  to  see  a  branch  of  such  a  Bank  located  in  the 
city  of  Burlington.  [Mr.  Hawkins  here  went  into  a  state- 
ment of  circumstances  connected  with  the  electioneering 
campaign  in  Henry  county,  stating  that  Mr.  Hall,  his  col- 
league, had  once  assumed,  but  afterwards  abandoned,  before 
the  people,  the  ground  of  unlimited  individual  paper  bank- 
ing or  issue,  taken  by  him  in  his  remarks  before  the  Con- 
vention on  Saturday.  Mr.  Hall  made  no  reply,  and  so  the 
matter  passed  off.] 

Mr.  Ripley  said  he  felt  clearly  whipped  by  the  vote  of 
Saturday,  but  he  was  suprised  to  hear  arguments  in  favor 
of  the  utihty  of  Banks  in  the  State  of  Iowa. — Mr.  Ripley 
continued  for  some  time  to  speak  in  opposition  to  the  policy 
of  Banks.     When  he  concluded,  the  Convention  adjourned. 


Fragments  from   The  Jozva  Standard.  91 

Afternoon  Session. 

Mr.  Grant  took  the  floor  immediately  after  dinner,  and 
continued  to  speak  for  nearly  or  quite  an  hour,  touching 
upon  the  various  points  that  had  been  brought  up  in  the 
discussion.  He  avowed  himself  a  hard-money  man,  and 
opposed  to  all  Banks. — He  said  in  the  west,  the  ground  had 
been  taken  of  prohibiting  the  creation  of  any  State  debt  for 
Internal  Improvements;  if  that  was  right,  he  thought  it  was 
right  to  prohibit  Banks.     He  opposed  the  motion  of  Mr.  "^^ 

Chapman.  The  people  of  this  Territory  were  now  opposed 
to  Banks;  but  if  they  should  change,  he  wanted  such  guards 
and  restrictions  as  would  prevent  abuse  and  swindling. 
Mr.  G.  expressed  it  as  his  opinion  that  the  Whigs  desired 
to  make  a  constitution  as  odious  as  possible,  so  as  to  defeat 
it  before  the  people. 

Mr.  Lucas  followed  Mr.  Grant.  He  said  the  Bank 
question  was  not  a  party  question — experience  showed 
that  the  country  had  been  benefitted  by  Banks. — Banks  had 
produced  evil,  but  not  all  the  evil  in  the  country.  $200,- 
000,000  borrowed  from  Europe  had  been  the  source  of 
most  of  the  pecuniary  disturbances.  Mr.  L.  stated  his  ex- 
perience in  Bank  matters  in  the  State  of  Ohio,  and  read 
from  some  of  his  messages,  when  Governor,  to  show  his 
opinions  at  that  time.  Those  opinions  he  still  retained. 
The  Democratic  platform  was  sound  and  well-regulated 
Banks — not  opposition  to  all  Banks.  In  conclusion,  Mr.  L. 
took  the  ground  that  the  Legislature  might  repeal  charters 
at  its  will;  he  repudiated  the  doctrine  that  one  Legislature 
could  pass  an  act  that  the  next  might  not  repeal. 

Mr.  Cook  followed  Mr.  Lucas.  He  repelled  the  impu- 
tation of  his  colleague,  that  the  Whigs  desired  to  make  the 
constitution  odious.  Even  if  they  wished  to  do  so,  a  ma- 
jority of  nearly  three  to  one  might  effectually  prevent  it. 
He  was  opposed  to  going  into  a  State  government,  and  had 


92  Convention  of  i8/f./f.. 

so  declared  on  the  stump;  but  he  should  honestly  endeavor 
to  make  a  constitution  as  acceptable  to  the  people  as  pos- 
sible. If  the  contrary  was  the  fact,  why  should  he — why 
should  the  Whigs  oppose  the  introduction  of  things  that 
they  deem  odious?  Mr.  C.  reviewed  the  different  rules  as 
reported  by  the  committee.  Some  of  them  he  approved — 
they  were  very  proper  provisions  to  put  in  a  Bank  charter; 
but  very  much  out  of  place  in  a  constitution  of  government. 
If  a  Bank  refused  to  pay  her  notes  on  demand,  her  charter 
was  to  be  forfeited.  That  he  did  not  oppose — they  en- 
gaged to  pay  on  demand,  and  should  do  so;  but  was  this 
the  only  thing  for  which  the  gentlemen  would  forfeit  a 
Bank  charter?  If  so,  they  were  much  greater  Bank  men 
than  Mr.  C.  There  were  many  other  things  that  ought  to 
go  into  a  charter,  and  which,  if  engaged  in  arranging  one, 
he  would  put  there.  But  he  did  not  deem  it  necessary  to 
put  them  in  the  constitution.  As  a  Bank  was  not  likely  to 
be  established  soon,  and  as  wisdom  and  light,  like  Democ- 
racy, were  progressive,  he  preferred  to  leave  the  details  to 
be  arranged  by  the  people,  or  their  representatives,  when 
it  was  determined  to  have  a  Bank.  Lastly,  the  power  was 
claimed  to  repeal  all  charters  at  pleasure.  The  gentleman 
from  Johnson  went  so  far  as  to  say  that  one  Legislature 
could  not  pass  an  act,  that  another  might  not  repeal.  Mr. 
C.  referred  to  various  authorities  to  disprove  this  position; — 
while  he  had  the  book  in  his  hand,  he  would  reply  to  the 
gentleman  from  Lee,  (Mr.  Peck.)  That  gentleman  had 
stated  that  Massachusetts  had  a  law  giving  to  the  Legisla- 
ture the  right  to  repeal  all  charters  after  its  date.  But  he 
did  not  tell  all.  It  said,  where  the  charter  contained  noth- 
ing to  the  contrary,  and  there  has  been  no  charter  since 
but  what  reserved  from  the  Legislature  that  right."  Was  the 
doctrine,  said  Mr.  C.  to  gain  ground,  that  the  Legislature 
might  repeal  at  pleasure  all  manner  of  their  acts? — that 
they  could  enter  into  no  engagement,  make  no  contract, 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  93 

pass  no  charter,  that  a  subsequent  Legislature  might  not 
repeal?  Was  it  to  be  assumed  that  a  Legislature  might  do 
what  an  individual  might  not?  From  whence  came  the 
power  and  the  authority  of  a  Legislature  to  repudiate  at 
will,  when  an  individual  was  forbidden  to  do  such  things? 
He  thought  the  doctrine  was  not  to  gain  ground. 

Mr.  Fletcher  said,  compared  with  the  vote  given  on  Sat- 
urday, all  other  votes  given  in  the  Convention  were  unim- 
portant and  insignificant.  Iowa  was  now  free  from  Banks, 
except  the  Bank  at  Dubuque. — This  Convention  contained  a 
large  majority  in  favor  of  equal  rights,  and  he  had  hoped 
gentlemen  would  have  come  to  the  rescue,  and  thrown 
themselves  in  the  breach  to  save  the  State  from  the  wither- 
ing blight — the  curse — of  moneyed  corporations. — But  the 
vote  had  proved  it  otherwise.  He  believed  that  20  years 
hence  they  would  unavailingly  regret  the  course  they  had 
pursued.  He  agreed  in  the  position  of  Mr.  Hall.  That 
gentleman  had  vacillated  on  other  occasions,  but  he  hoped 
he  would  remain  firm  in  the  present  instance.  Mr.  F.  dif- 
fered with  his  colleague,  in  the  opinion  that  three-fourths 
of  his  constituents  were  in  favor  of  Banks.  It  was  said 
that  no  stock  would  be  taken  under  the  proposed  restric- 
tions. He  thought  it  was  not  improbable.  He  would  not 
take  any.  In  the  way  the  matter  stood  now,  he  held  him- 
self at  liberty  to  vote  for  retaining  the  restrictions;  holding 
himself  at  liberty  also,  to  vote  against  them  on  their  final 
passage. 

Mr.  Sells  followed  Mr.  Fletcher,  in  some  remarks,  in 
which  he  charged,  that  Mr.  F.  had  taken  different  ground 
in  the  Convention  from  what  he  occupied  before  the  people. 
This,  on  Tuesday,  was  followed  by  a  reply  from  Mr. 
Fletcher,  and  a  rejoinder  by  Mr.  Sells. 

A  division  of  the  question  upon  striking  out  all  after  the 
first  rule  was  called  for,  so  as  to  have  a  vote  upon  each  rule 
separately.     A  division  was  had,  accordingly. 


94  Convention  of  1844.. 

The  question  being  taken  upon  striking  out  the  2d  rule, 
it  was  lost;  yeas  5,  nays  63. 

Motions  were  then  made  (but  failed)  to  increase  and 
reduce  the  size  of  notes,  as  provided  in  the  3d  rule;  after 
which,  the  Convention  adjourned. 


Tuesday,  Oct.  22,  1844. 

Mr.  Bailey,  from  the  select  committee  on  the  boundary, 
made  a  report: 

The  Convention  resumed  the  consideration  of  the  Bank 
report. 

The  question  was  taken  on  striking  out  the  3d  rule,  and 
lost;  yeas  15,  nays  52. 

Also,  the  question  on  the  4th  rule;  lost. 

Mr.  Peck  moved  a  slight  amendment  to  the  5th  rule, 
which  was  adopted. 

The  question  was  taken  on  striking  out  the  5th  rule,  and 
lost;  yeas  17,  nays  52.  One  Whig  (Kirkpatrick)  voted 
nay,  and  two  were  absent.  Otherwise  it  was  a  strict  party 
vote. 

Mr.  Gower  moved  an  amendment  to  the  6th  rule. 
Carried. 

The  question  was  taken  on  striking  out  the  6th  rule,  and 
lost. 

Mr.  Fletcher  moved  an  additional  rule,  that  no  Bank 
should  issue  more  notes  than  specie  paid  in;  which,  on  Mr. 
Hall's  motion,  was  amended  so  that  they  should  not  issue 
more  than  double  in  notes.  The  question  was  then  taken 
on  the  additional  rule,  and  it  was  lost;  yeas  28,  nays  30. 

Mr.  Wyckoff  offered  the  following  as  an  amendment  to 
the  7th  rule: 

"  But  no  bill  for  the  unconditional  repeal  of  such  charter 


Fragments  from   The  lotua  Standard,  95 

shall  become  a  law  unless  it  shall  have  passed  both  branches 
of  the  General  Assembly,  be  approved  by  the  Governor, 
and  submitted  to  the  people  at  the  next  general  election; 
and  if  approved  by  a  majority  of  the  qualified  electors  of 
the  State,  the  same  shall  become  a  law,  and  the  charter 
shall  be  considered  repealed." 

Mr.  Wyckoff  said,  such  a  provision  ought  to  be  inserted 
to  make  the  matter  consistent.  If  the  Legislature  could 
not  of  itself  grant  a  charter,  but  the  people  had  to  concur, 
it  would  be  inconsistent  to  let  the  Legislature  repeal  a 
charter,  without  the  same  expression  of  concurrence  by  the 
people. 

The  question  being  taken  on  Mr.  W's  amendment,  it 
was  lost;  yeas  29,  nays  38,  as  follows: 

Yeas — Messrs.  Benedict,  Blankenship,  Bratton,  Brook- 
bank,  Campbell  of  Washington,  Charleton,  Chapman,  Cook, 
Delashmutt,  Ferguson,  Hawkins,  Hempstead,  Hoag,  Hob- 
son,  Hooten,  Kirkpatrick,  Lucas,  McAtee,  McCrory,  Quin- 
ton,  Randolph,  Ross  of  Washington,  Sells,  Shelleday, 
Strong,  Toole,  Williams,  Wright,  Wyckoff — 29. 

Nays — Messrs.  Bailey,  Brown,  Butler,  Clarke,  Crawford, 
Cutler,  Davidson,  Durham,  Evans,  Felkner,  Fletcher,  Gal- 
braith,  Galland,  Gower,  Grant,  Hall,  Hale,  Harrison,  Hep- 
ner,  Kerr,  Langworthy,  Marsh,  McKean,  Murray,  O'Brien, 
Olmstead,  Peck,  Price,  Ripley,  Robinson,  Ross  of  Jeffer- 
son, Salmon,  Staley,  Taylor,  Thompson,  Whitmore,  and 
President — 38. 

The  question  was  now  taken  on  striking  out  the  7th  rule, 
and  it  was  lost;  yeas  20,  nays  49,  as  follows: 

Yeas — Messrs.  Blankenship,  Brookbank,  Campbell  of 
Washington,  Chapman,  Cook,  Delashmutt,  Hawkins, 
Hoag,  Hobson,  Morden,  McAtee,  McCrory,  McKean, 
Randolph,  Ross  of  Washington,  Sells,  Shelleday,  Toole, 
Williams,  Wyckoff — 20. 

Nays — Messrs.  Bailey,  Bissell,  Bratton,  Brown,  Butler, 


96  Convention  of  1844.. 

Campbell  of  Scott,  Charleton,  Clark,  Crawford,  Cutler, 
Davidson,  Durham,  Evans,  Felkner.  Fletcher,  Ferguson, 
Galbraith,  Galland,  Gower,  Grant,  Hall,  Hale,  Harrison, 
Hempstead,  Hepner,  Hooten,  Kerr,  Kirkpatrick,  Lang- 
worthy,  Lowe  of  Des  Moines,  Lucas,  Marsh,  Murray, 
O'Brien,  Olmstead,  Peck,  Price,  Quinton,  Ripley,  Robin- 
son, Ross  of  Jefferson,  Salmon,  Staley,  Strong,  Taylor, 
Thompson,  Whitmore,  Wright,  and  President — 49. 

Mr.  Peck  offered  the  following  as  an  8th  rule: 

"Any  violation  of  or  non-compliance  with  the  provisions 
and  restrictions  contained  in  this  section,  by  the  stock- 
holders, commissioners,  or  officers,  or  persons  connected 
with  the  creation  of  any  such  Bank  or  its  management,  in 
any  of  its  accounts,  exhibits,  certificates  of  stock  paid,  or 
by  embezzling  its  funds  or  property,  shall  be  punished  by 
fine  and  imprisonment  in  the  Penitentiary,  and  shall  subject 
the  offender  to  the  same  disqualification  as  conviction  for 
infamous  crimes." 

Mr.  Lucas  said  he  was  opposed  to  enacting  such  a  pro- 
vision as  that  in  the  Constitution.  It  would  be  proper 
matter  for  a  Legislature  to  provide,  if  they  saw  proper.  If, 
said  Mr.  L.,  we  expect  to  have  a  Bank,  do  not  let  us  put  in 
the  Constitution  such  provisions  as  will  drive  everybody 
from  attempting  to  engage  in  the  business. 

Mr.  Peck  said,  as  there  seemed  to  be  opposition  felt  to 
his  amendment,  he  would  withdraw  it,  and  asked  leave  of 
the  Convention  to  do  so.     But  leave  was  refused. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  Mr.  Peck's  amendment, 
and  carried;  yeas  37,  nays  33. 

Mr.  Chapman  moved  to  add  the  following  after  the 
rules,  as  a  second  section  to  the  report : 

"That  the  Legislative  Assembly  may  alter  or  amend  any 
of  the  restrictions  in  the  ist  section  contained  except  the 
first  rule,  by  submitting  such  alteration  or  amendment  to  a 
vote  of  the  qualified  electors,  as  in  the  first  rule  prescribed." 


Fragments  from   The  lo-wa  Standard.  97 

Mr.  Chapman  in  a  few  words,  explained  the  equity  and 
reasonableness  of  his  amendment. 

Mr.  Peck  opposed  the  amendment. 

Mr.  Lucas  supported  the  amendment.  He  said,  it  was 
admitted  that  the  people  were  sovereign,  and  they  had 
elected  us  to  make  a  Constitution  by  which  their  sover- 
eignty was  to  be  guarded  and  expressed.  In  reference  to 
Banks,  we  put  in  the  Constitution  certain  restrictions  by 
way  of  charge,  and  we  say  that  a  charter  shall  be  granted 
by  an  act  of  the  Legislature,  sanctioned  by  a  vote  of  the 
people.  Why  not  say  that  the  same  mode  should  be  fol- 
lowed to  repeal? 

When  a  charter  was  granted,  individuals  might  have 
embarked  their  whole  means  in  this  undertaking;  their 
whole  interests  might  be  involved;  and  the  charter  should 
not  be  taken  away  rashly.  Let  us  be  consistent  in  what 
we  provide,  and  not  act  under  the  influence  of  excitement. 
If  we  will  not  have  Banks,  let  us  say  so;  but  do  not  make 
restrictions  of  such  a  character  that  none  can  possibly  be 
had.     Let  us  meet  this  question  fairly,  and  be  consistent. 

Mr.  Quinton  opposed  the  proposition  of  Mr.  Chapman, 
denouncing  it  as  unsound,  &c. 

Mr.  Chapman  inquired  why  everything  that  came  from 
a  Whig  was  unsound?  It  was  but  asked  that  the  people 
should  have  the  privilege  of  amending  the  restrictions,  in 
case  they  did  not  like  them.  The  restrictions  were  put  in 
on  the  pretence  of  guarding  the  rights  of  the  people;  if  the 
people  chose  to  vary  them,  why  should  they  not  be  per- 
mitted to  do  so?  If  it  should  be  desired  to  vary  from  these 
restrictions,  the  form  of  amending  the  Constitution  would 
have  to  be  gone  through,  in  order  to  do  it.  As  the  char- 
ters were  to  be  submitted  to  the  people,  why  not  let  the 
people  also,  at  the  same  time,  say,  if  they  chose,  that  the 
restrictions  might  be  varied  from? 

Mr.  Quinton  thought  that  the  effect  of  the  proposed  sec- 
7 


98  Convention  of  1844. 

tion  would  be  to  effect  a  repeal  of  the  restrictions.  The 
Legislature  would  pass  a  Bank  charter,  and  at  the  same 
time  pass  a  law  to  repeal  the  restrictions,  and  the  people, 
he  believed,  under  Bank  influence,  would  sanction  the 
repeal. 

Mr.  Lucas  said,  in  order  to  be  understood,  he  would  ex- 
plain the  position  that  he  took.  A  certain  process  was 
taken  to  enact  a  law;  the  Legislature  originated  it,  the  Gov- 
ernor gave  it  his  approval,  and  lastly  the  people  gave  it 
their  sanction.  Certain  rights  were  given  by  that  law,  and 
to  take  away  these  rights  there  ought  to  be  the  same  pro- 
cess, and  the  same  formalities. 

Mr.  Hall  said  no  man  had  greater  respect  than  himself 
for  the  views  and  experience  of  the  gentleman  from  John- 
son, (Mr.  Lucas)  but  experience  was  not  always  founded 
in  wisdom.  Experience  sometimes  adhered  too  much  to 
the  rules  of  the  past.  He  looked  upon  some  things  with  a 
different  view  from  that  gentleman.  Bank  charters  he  con- 
sidered special  privileges.  It  was  a  privilege  the  people 
conceded,  not  a  right  that  the  individuals  had.  For  this 
reason  he  would  have  a  summary  way  of  repeal  in  case  of 
abuse.  He  saw  something  more  than  meal  in  the  amend- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Wapello,  (Mr.  Chapman). 
The  Legislature  might  submit  a  charter  in  violation  of  the 
rules,  and  a  vote  on  it  would  repeal  the  rules,  and  then  the 
charter  would  exist  without  any  rules  at  all.  Banking  had 
always  been  a  spoiled  child,  and  was  impudent  and  dis- 
honest, and  he  was  not  going  to  put  on  a  better  smile  to  it 
than  he  did  to  any  other  interest.  In  conclusion,  Mr.  H. 
exhorted  the  minority  to  patience  and  equanimity.  He 
knew  their  situation  was  disagreeable.  They  had  to  swal- 
low a  bitter  pill,  and  there  was  no  gilding  on  it;  but  it  was 
their  lot. 

Mr.  Delashmutt  repelled  Mr.  Hall's  proffers  of  sympathy. 
They  were  uncalled  for  and  unneeded. 


Fragments  fi'om   The  Iowa  Standard.  99 

Mr.  Lucas  spoke  in  defence  of  the  position  that  he  had 
taken. 

Mr.  Cook  said  he  wished  to  see  the  proposed  section 
adopted.  He  desired  to  have  the  Constitution  such  that 
the  people  would  accept  it.  He  was  apprehensive  that  if 
the  rules  were  adopted  in  the  manner  they  now  stood,  that 
the  Constitution  would  be  rejected.  The  sympathy  of  the 
gentleman  from  Henry  he  tho't  had  better  be  reserved  for 
his  own  case. 

After  some  further  remarks,  the  question  was  taken  upon 
Mr.  Chapman's  amendment,  and  it  was  lost;  yeas  22,  nays 
45,  as  follows: 

Yeas — Messrs.  Blankenship,  Brookbank,  Campbell  of 
Washington,  Chapman,  Cook,  Delashmutt,  Hawkins,  Hoag, 
Hobson,  Kerr,  Kirkpatrick,  Lucas,  Morden,  McCrory, 
McKean,  Randolph,  Ross  of  Washington,  Sells,  Shelle- 
day,  Toole,  Williams,  Wyckoff — 22. 

Nays — Messrs.  Bailey,  Benedict,  Bissell,  Bratton,  Brown, 
Butler,  Campbell  of  Scott,  Charleton,  Clarke,  Crawford, 
Cutler,  Davidson,  Durham,  Evans,  Felkner,  Fletcher,  Fer- 
guson, Galbraith,  Galland,  Gower,  Grant,  Hall,  Hale,  Har- 
rison, Hempstead,  Hepner,  Hooten,  Langworthy,  Lowe  of 
Des  Moines,  Marsh,  McAtee,  Murray,  O'Brien,  Olmstead, 
Peck,  Price,  Quinton,  Ripley,  Robinson,  Ross  of  Jefferson, 
Salmon,  Staley,  Strong,  Taylor,  Thompson,  Whitmore, 
and  President — 47. 

Convention  adjourned. 

Afternoon  Session. 

The  Convention  resumed  the  consideration  of  the  Bank 
report. 

Mr.  Sells  proposed  as  an  amendment  to  the  report,  a 
plan  for  real  estate  security.  Mr.  S.  said  he  did  not  consider 
the  present  provisions  to  be  of  the  proper  character  to 
prevent  fraud  and  loss. 


lOO  Convention  of  j8^^. 

The  question  being  taken  upon  Mr.  Sells'  amendment,  it 
was  lost;  yeas  20,  nays  49. 

Mr.  Hepner  proposed  a  prohibition  against  the  State 
taking  stock.  If  a  Bank  failed  the  State  would  be  held 
responsible.     Agreed  to. 

Other  amendments  were  moved  and  lost. 

Mr.  Peck  moved  that  the  report  be  referred  to  a  select 
committee  of  5.     Lost. 

Mr.  Cook  proposed  that  nothing  in  the  rules  should 
prevent  the  Legislature  from  giving  its  assent  to  the  loca- 
tion of  a  branch  of  a  United  States  Bank  in  the  State  of 
Iowa.     Lost. 

Mr.  Bailey  wished  to  have  the  Penitentiary  clause  re- 
considered. 

Mr.  Hempstead  was  opposed  to  its  being  reconsidered. 
If  the  whole  concern — Banks,  officers  and  all,  could  be  sent 
to  the  Penitentiary,  he  would  be  very  glad  of  it. 

Mr.  Chapman  said  the  reason  why  he  voted  against  the 
State  taking  stock,  was,  that  he  did  not  wish  to  see  the 
State  sent  to  the  Penitentiary. 

The  vote  on  reconsideration  was  taken,  and  lost;  yeas  26, 
nays  36. 

Mr.  Peck  proposed  to  refer  the  report  to  a  select  com- 
mittee of  7. 

Mr.  Lowe,  of  Des  Moines,  moved  that  the  report,  so  far 
as  it  related  to  Banks,  be  indefinitely  postponed. 

Mr.  L.  said  he  had  voted  for  striking  out  the  majority 
report,  in  compliance  with  a  kind  of  pledge  to  his  constit- 
uents. But  finding  that  we  were  not  likely  to  have  any 
thing  that  would  save  the  public  from  fraud  and  loss,  he 
was  disposed  to  go  for  what  would  be  sure  to  prevent  all 
frauds,  and  adopt  the  entire  hard-money  system.  He 
thought  the  public  sentiment  was  not  in  favor  of  a  Bank  at 
this  time;  and  if  so,  it  was  not  worth  while  to  make  prepa- 
rations for  one. 


Fragments  from    The  Iowa  Standard.  loi 

Mr.  Peck  withdrew  his  motion  to  refer  to  a  select  com- 
mittee. 

Mr.  Lucas  admired  the  ingenuity  of  those  opposed  to  all 
Banks.  The  gentleman  from  Des  Moines,  ( Mr.  Lowe ) 
had  got  new  light — the  public  sentiment  was  against  Banks. 
Mr.  L.  confessed  that  he  had  got  no  light  since  the  decisive 
vote  of  Saturday,  by  which  50  men  had  said  their  constit- 
uents were  not  opposed  to  all  Banks.  The  gentleman 
proposed  to  say  to  the  people  that  they  were  not  compe- 
tent to  decide  upon  this  matter — that  they  were  not  to  be 
trusted.  The  report  had  been  so  amended  and  confused, 
that  it  was  due  to  the  Convention  that  it  be  referred.  Our 
time  had  been  consumed  for  two  days,  and  the  yeas  and 
nays  taken  twenty  or  thirty  times,  and  now  it  was  all  to 
vanish,  and  none  could  tell  what  became  of  it. 

Mr.  Chapman  said  he  would  vote  for  the  indefinite  post- 
ponement, as  he  believed  that  the  proceedings  of  the  last 
forty-eight  hours  showed  that  we  were  not  prepared  to 
make  a  Bank.  He  should  not  vote,  however,  with  a  view 
to  having  the  Constitution  left  open,  as  he  was  opposed  to 
that. 

Mr.  Hepner  thought  gentlemen  were  mistaken  in  their 
opinion,  of  the  effect  of  striking  out  the  report.  The  Con- 
vention would  not  adopt  the  minority  report  after  once 
rejecting  it.  He,  for  one,  could  not.  He  thought  if  the 
Penitentiary  clause  was  stricken  out,  the  Convention  would 
agree  to  the  report.  It  was  put  in  without  consideration, 
and  he  was  not  clear  but  it  would  have  the  effect  to  send  to 
the  Penitentiary  any  Legislature  that  should  pass  a  Bank 
charter.  Some  one  here  moved  that  so  much  of  the  report 
as  related  to  Banking  be  recommitted  to  the  committee  on 
Corporations. 

Mr.  Cook  opposed  the  recommitment.  No  good  could 
be  obtained  by  that.  Time  enough  had  been  spent — it  was 
time  to  take  a  decisive  vote.  He  wanted  to  go  at  some- 
thing else. 


UVTVERSITV  01?  CAWfOW 
CAMTA  RARBARA  COLLEGE  W 


I02  Convention  of  1844. 

Mr.  Bailey  supported  the  recommitment.  He  had  been 
acting  all  the  while  under  restraint — he  could  not  vote  his 
sentiments.  His  constituents  expected  restrictions  in  the 
Constitution.  He  agreed  to  a  great  extent  with  the  gentle- 
man from  Des  Moines,  (Mr.  Lowe);  his  opinion  was  that  a 
Whig  would  swallow  anything,  so  it  was  called  a  Bank. 

Mr.  Hall  said  the  reason  of  all  the  difficulty  was,  that  we 
had  proposed  to  let  in  that  mad,  untamable  beast,  banking, 
amongst  us.  Banking  was  an  untamable  viper,  but  we  had 
proposed  to  make  a  pen  for  it,  and  chain  it  so  that  it  could 
do  no  injury.  It  was  unchainable;  and  the  best  policy  was 
to  cut  its  head  off — have  no  special  privileges.  If  we  could 
not  invent  manacles  to  secure  it,  what  could  the  people  do 
with  it?     He  should  vote  for  indefinite  postponement. 

Mr.  Hempstead  opposed  the  recommitment.  Neither 
Whigs  nor  Democrats  wanted  a  Bank;  why  then  should 
we  provide  for  posterity?  If  they  wanted  a  Bank  let  them 
amend  the  Constitution.  Further,  Mr.  H.  deemed  Banks 
to  be  unconstitutional.  Paper  money  was  bills  of  credit. 
We  should  form  the  Constitution  of  Iowa  in  conformity  to 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Hepner  thought,  if  the  report  was  not  committed, 
the  Convention  would  do  nothing. 

The  question  being  taken  on  the  recommitment,  it  was 
lost;  yeas  27,  nays  38. 

After  some  further  delay,  it  was  again  moved  to  adjourn, 
and  carried. 


Wednesday,  Oct.  23,  1844. 

Mr.  Bailey,  from  the  committee  on  Education,  &c.,  made 
a  special  report,  amendatory  of  the  former. 

The  Convention  resumed  the  consideration  of  the  report 
of  the  committee  on  Corporations — the  question  being  upon 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  103 

the  motion  of  Mr.  Lowe  of  Des  Moines,  to  indefinitely  post- 
pone all  that  part  which  related  to  Banks. 

The  vote  of  yesterday,  ordering  the  previous  question  on 
Mr.  Lowe's  motion,  was  reconsidered  —  whereupon,  Mr. 
Hall  moved  that  all  that  part  of  the  report  relating  to 
Banks,  be  referred  to  a  select  committee  of  seven;  which 
was  agreed  to. 

The  Convention  next  took  up  the  report  of  the  committee 
on  the  Judiciary  Department,  and  went  into  Committee  of 
the  Whole. 

Mr.  Hempstead  moved  to  reduce  the  associate  Justices  of 
the  Supreme  Court  to  two;  which  carried — whereupon, 

Mr.  Hempstead  proposed  to  substitute  for  the  6th  sec- 
tion of  the  report,  which  provided  for  the  estabhshment  of 
district  courts,  whose  Judges  were  to  be  elected  by  joint 
ballot  of  the  Legislature.  The  object  of  Mr.  Hempstead's 
substitute  was  to  have  the  Judges  elected  by  the  voters  of 
the  district. 

Mr.  Hempstead  went  on  to  say  that  he  should  assume 
that  in  a  Republican  or  Democratic  government,  the  people 
were  sovereign,  and  all  power  resided  in  them.  He 
thought  this  would  not  be  denied.  He  said  when  the  Leg- 
islature, or  the  Senate  and  Governor  appointed  officers, 
they  acted  as  proxies  of  the  people;  and  he  assumed  that  if 
the  people  were  capable  of  electing  these  proxies,  they 
were  capable  of  electing  the  officers  themselves.  They 
would  be  capable  of  judging  in  reference  to  the  individuals 
seeking  the  office.  A  majority  at  least,  were  in  favor  of  a 
wholesome  administration  of  the  government,  and  if  they 
failed  to  make  a  judicious  selection,  they  would  be  the 
sufferers.  Political  influence,  it  was  said,  would  mingle  in 
the  election  of  Judges  by  the  people.  The  same  would  be 
the  case  in  elections  by  the  Legislature.  Judges  were 
generally  appointed  by  the  Legislature  on  account  of  their 
political  views.     We  were  elected  by  the  people  to  save  to 


I04  Convention  of  1844. 

them  all  the  rights  that  they  could  rightfully  and  properly 
exercise.  Gentlemen  here,  who  had  been  in  favor  of 
submitting  the  question  of  Banks  and  such  like  abtruse 
questions  to  the  people,  would  now  carry  out  their  prin- 
ciples by  voting  to  give  the  election  of  Judges  to  the 
people.  The  power  of  impeachment  was  relied  upon 
for  the  punishment  of  Judges  who  misbehaved;  but  that 
power  was  a  dead  letter  upon  the  constitution.  Judges 
were  seldom  or  never  punished  for  misdemeanors.  The 
proper  way  for  impeachments  to  be  conducted,  was  at  the 
ballot  box.  There,  the  people  could  execute  the  process 
themselves. 

After  Mr.  Hempstead  had  taken  his  seat,  it  was  sug- 
gested that  his  object  could  be  better  accomplished  by- 
moving  his  amendment  at  another  place;  whereupon  Mr. 
H.  withdrew  his  substitute  for  the  present. 

After  the  withdrawal  of  Mr.  Hempstead's  proposition,  a 
very  active  discussion  sprang  up  on  two  motions  made  for 
the  purpose  of  striking  the  terms  "common  law"  and  also  the 
term  "equity"  from  the  report.  Those  motions  were  really, 
as  the  reporter  understood  them,  entirely  harmless  in  their 
character;  but  having  alarmed  several  gentlemen  with  the 
apprehension  that  the  whole  venerable  fabric  of  the  com- 
mon law  jurisprudence  was  to  be  swept  from  the  State  of 
Iowa  at  a  blow,  a  series  of  eulogies  of  that  system,  of  the 
most  glowing  character,  followed,  which  exhausted  the  en- 
tire forenoon.  The  result  was,  however,  that  the  excep- 
tionable words  were  stricken  out;  after  which,  the  Con- 
vention adjourned. 

Afternoon  Session. 

Mr.  Hempstead  moved  to  strike  out  the  7th  section,  and 
insert  a  substitute;  the  object  being  as  before,  to  elect  the 
District  Judges  by  the  people. 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  105 

Mr.  Sells  spoke  in  opposition  to  the  motion  of  Mr.  Hemp- 
stead, but  had  nearly  concluded  his  remarks  before  we 
entered  the  Hall.  When  we  entered,  we  understood  him 
to  be  urging  the  probability  that  the  political  influences  in 
which  they  would  become  involved  by  being  the  subjects 
of  a  canvass  in  a  popular  election,  would  be  extremely  likely 
to  bias  their  action  on  the  bench.  A  reference  was  also 
made  to  the  State  of  Mississippi,  we  believe,  as  affording 
an  instance  of  badly-administered  laws,  connected  with 
popularly  elected  Judges. 

Mr.  Hempstead  rejoined,  that  Judges  would  have  no 
more  political  bias  than  when  elected  by  joint  ballot  of  the 
Legislature.  Joint  ballot  was  one  of  the  most  corrupt 
methods  of  election  ever  devised.  In  Illinois,  in  a  particular 
instance,  the  Democrats  had  agreed  to  elect  a  Whig  in  one 
district,  in  consideration  of  getting  a  favorite  individual 
appointed  in  another. 

In  Arkansas,  a  Judge  who  decided  adverse  to  the  action 
of  the  Legislature  in  the  matter  of  the  Real  Estate  Bank, 
was  turned  out  of  office  by  the  Legislature.  In  IlHnois,  a 
Judge  having  decided  against  the  constitutionality  of  admit- 
ting unnaturalized  persons  to  vote,  the  Legislature  turned 
in  and  remodelled  almost  the  whole  Judiciary,  fairly  legis- 
lating the  obnoxious  Judge  out  of  office. 

Mr.  Bailey  had  no  doubt  of  the  capacity  of  the  people  to 
elect  their  Judges;  but  he  thought  there  was  great  weight 
in  the  argument  of  the  gentleman  from  Muscatine.  There 
was  real  danger  of  Judges  becoming  corrupt  through 
political  influences.  They  were  liable  to  form  partialities 
and  prejudices  in  the  canvass,  that  would  operate  on  the 
bench.  The  matter  was  discussed  in  Van  Buren  county, 
and  the  candidates  on  both  sides,  expressed  a  willingness 
to  give  the  election  of  all  officers  to  the  people;  but  it  was 
thought  not  to  be  best  to  elect  the  Judges.  The  people 
nad  not  asked  for  the  election  of  the  Judges,  nor  did  they 


io6  Convention  of  1844. 

want  it:  and  Mr.  B.  did  not  see  why  the  gentleman  from 
Dubuque  should  make  such  a  tremendous  fuss  for  the 
purpose  of  giving  to  the  people  what  they  had  not  asked  for. 

Mr.  Lucas  said  the  question  would  seem  to  be,  whether 
there  was  any  officer  in  the  government  whose  duties 
were  so  sacred  that  they  could  not  be  elected  by  the  people. 
All  officers  were  servants  of  the  people,  from  the  President 
down,  and  he  repudiated  the  idea  that  the  people  were  not 
capable  of  electing  them.  A  Judge  was  not  a  more  sacred 
officer  than  the  Governor;  the  latter  had  the  power  of  life 
and  death,  in  his  right  to  remit  the  sentence  of  the  court. 
Judges  were  not  more  sacred  than  the  Representatives. 
Mr.  L.  supposed  the  disposition  of  the  Convention  to  be,  to 
establish  an  independent  Supreme  Court;  he  thought  it 
would  be  better  to  elect  the  Judges  of  that  Court  by  joint 
ballot  of  the  Legislature,  for  the  reason  that  the  people  of 
the  Territory  were  not  sufficiently  acquainted  with  those 
who  would  be  qualified  to  fill  the  offices.  He  had  some 
experience  in  relation  to  appointments,  and  he  could  say 
that  the  Executive  was  liable  to  be  imposed  upon  by  false 
representations  of  character  and  qualifications.  It  was  the 
same  in  respect  to  the  Legislature.  In  Ohio,  he  had  known 
the  Legislature  to  appoint  individuals  to  be  Judges  in  dis- 
tricts, not  only  without  the  solicitation,  but  against  the  re- 
monstrance of  the  persons  representing  those  districts.  He 
conceived  the  best  way  to  be  to  elect  the  District  Judges 
by  the  people,  and  appoint  the  Supreme  Judges  by  joint 
ballot  of  the  Legislature. 

Mr.  Bailey  said  the  argument  of  the  gentleman  from 
Johnson  was  inconsistent.  He  said  all  power  was  in  the 
people,  and  they  should  elect  Judges  as  well  as  Governor, 
&c.;  but  he  was  in  favor  of  the  Legislature  appointing  the 
Supreme  Judges,  because  the  people  were  not  acquainted 
with  persons  proper  to  fill  the  office.  Mr.  B.  said  it  was 
not   necessary  to   have  persons  of    greater  learning  for  a 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  107 

Supreme,  than  a  District  Judge;  and  if  the  people  were 
qualified  to  make  selection  of  a  District  Judge,  they  could 
select  a  Supreme  Judge.  If  the  argument  of  want  of  ac- 
quaintance was  good  in  the  case  of  a  Supreme  Judge,  it 
would  be  good  in  the  case  of  the  Governor  of  the  State. 
But  one  Governor  was  to  be  elected,  and  he  might  not  be 
intimately  known  by  any  of  the  people  except  in  his  own 
neighborhood.  Mr.  B.  had  no  objection  to  the  people 
electing  the  Judges;  but  he  did  not  think  they  desired  the 
election — they  had  never  asked  to  have  it. 

Mr.  Quinton  said  there  were  some  strong  arguments  in 
the  remarks  of  the  gentleman  from  Van  Buren;  but  this 
was  said  to  be  an  age  of  progress,  and  he  beheved  he  should 
support  the  proposition  to  elect  the  Judges.  He  could 
recollect  the  time  when,  if  a  man  in  a  public  speech,  had 
declared  himself  in  favor  of  electing  a  Justice  of  the  Peace 
by  the  people,  he  would  have  been  hissed  down;  but  now, 
Justices  were  almost  invariably  elected,  and  he  believed 
they  exhibited  as  much  impartiality  and  independence  as 
any  other  judicial  officer.  In  his  opinion,  the  ends  of  jus- 
tice would  be  better  served  by  elections  by  the  people,  than 
by  the  Legislature. 

The  question  was  now  taken  upon  Mr.  Hempstead's 
proposition,  and  it  was  lost;  yeas  22,  nays  36. 

Mr.  Ross  of  Jefferson  moved  to  reduce  the  term  of  office 
of  the  Judges  from  six  years,  as  in  the  report,  to  four  years; 
which  was  agreed  to. 

The  terms  of  office  of  Probate  Judge,  Clerk  of  the  Dis- 
trict Court,  and  District  Attorney,  were  then  severally 
reduced  from  four  years,  as  in  the  report,  to  two  years. 

Considerable  opposition  was  made  to  the  reduction  of  the 
Clerk's  term;  and  one  gentleman,  (Mr.  Cutler,)  said,  al- 
though he  should  vote  for  the  reduction,  on  the  principle  of 
bringing  officers  to  accountability  to  the  people  at  short 
terms,  he  did  it  against  his  better  judgment.     He  had  had 


io8  Convention  of  1844.. 

some  little  experience,  and  knew  that  a  man  could  not 
become  a  good  Clerk  in  two  years. 

Messrs.  Peck,  Cook  &c.,  certified  the  statement  of  Mr. 
Cutler,  that  two  years  was  too  short  a  term  to  become  a 
good  officer. 

Mr.  Hall  now  proposed  a  substitute  for  the  12th  section 
of  the  report,  which  contained  a  plan  for  dividing  the 
State  into  four  judicial  districts,  and  forming  the  Supreme 
Court  with  the  District  Judges.  Mr.  H's  substitute  pro- 
posed but  three  districts,  and  an  independent  Supreme 
Court. 

Mr.  Grant  opposed  fixing  the  districts  at  three,  as  we 
might  be  delayed  in  getting  into  the  Union;  and  the  popu- 
lation demand  a  larger  number. 

Mr.  Hempstead  desired  a  separate  Supreme  Court,  and 
was  willing  to  pay  something  for  it.  The  present  arrange- 
ment of  the  Courts  in  this  Territory  was  not  calculated  to 
advance  the  ends  of  justice.  The  Judges  were  interested 
to  sustain  each  other's  decisions. 

Mr.  Cook  was  opposed  to  having  an  independent 
Supreme  Court  at  this  time,  on  grounds  of  economy. 
There  was  nothing,  in  fact,  for  a  Supreme  Court  to  do;  the 
business  was  lessening.  Mr.  C.  said  the  proportion  of 
cases  reversed,  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  this  Territory, 
was  about  one  half,  and  that,  he  thought  a  fair  proportion. 

Mr.  Hall  also  argued  against  a  Supreme  Court. 

Messrs.  Peck  and  Lucas  supported  the  plan  of  an  inde- 
pendent Supreme  Court.  The  State,  they  said,  was  to  be 
organized — many  new  questions  would  arise — and  it  was 
important  to  have  them  properly  settled.  Every  individual 
possessed  great  pride  of  opinion,  even  in  ordinary  matters; 
and  in  case  of  a  Judge,  there  would  be  a  strong  desire  to 
sustain  a  previous  decision;  and  though  the  particular 
Judge  that  made  a  decision,  was  not  to  sit  on  the  bench 
when  it  was  tried  in  the  Supreme  Court,  yet  he  would  ex- 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard,  109 

ert  an  influence  in  behalf  of  his  own  decision.  For  these 
reasons,  mainly,  those  gentlemen  opposed  having  the  same 
Judges  in  the  District  and  Supreme  Courts. 

The  question  was  now  taken  on  Mr.  Hall's  substitute, 
and  it  was  adopted. 

After  some  further  proceedings  of  little  interest,  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole  rose,  and  the  Convention  ad- 
journed. 


Thursday,  Oct.  24,  1844. 

Mr.  Langworthy  offered  a  resolution  to  amend  the  rules, 
so  that  no  person  be  permitted  to  speak  more  than  once 
upon  any  question,  and  not  more  than  fifteen  minutes  at 
one  time;  which  was  adopted. 

Mr.  Ross  of  Washington  presented  a  petition,  asking 
that  persons  of  color  be  admitted  to  the  rights  of  citizen- 
ship; which  was  laid  on  the  table. 

Mr.  Lowe  of  Des  Moines,  from  the  committee  on  the 
Schedule,  made  a  report. 

The  President  announced  Messrs.  Hall,  Galbraith, 
Bailey,  Evans,  Langworthy,  Chapman  and  Randolph,  as 
the  Select  Committee  on  the  subject  of  Banking. 

The  Convention  took  the  Judiciary  Report  as  reported 
from  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  and  considered  the 
amendments. 

Opposition  was  made  to  agreeing  to  the  vote  of  the 
Committee,  establishing  an  independent  Supreme  Court. 
Mr.  Cook  could  not  give  consent  to  establishing  these 
offices  at  high  salaries,  which  would  be  mere  sinecures. 
The  Convention  agreed  to  the  action  of  the  committee; 
yeas  60,  nays  11. 

Mr.  Lucas  proposed  a  substitute  for  the  6th  section,  for 
the  purpose  of  establishing  a  District  Court,  consisting  of  a 


no  Convention  of  1844.. 

president  Judge,  and  three  associate  Judges,  all  to  be  elected 
by  the  people.  The  Associates  to  be  chosen  by  each 
county,  and  to  constitute  of  themselves,  a  court  for  the 
transaction  of  county  business.  Mr.  L.  said  this  would  pre- 
sent the  question  of  electing  the  Judges.  The  associate 
system  existed  in  Ohio,  and  worked  well.  Besides,  if  the 
president  Judge  of  the  district  should  be  absent,  the  asso- 
ciates would  constitute  a  court  without  him.  He  deemed 
it  his  duty  to  present  the  plan. 

Mr.  Hempstead  desired  the  question  of  electing  Judges, 
disembarrassed  of  everything  else.  The  associate  system 
he  considered  objectionable. 

Mr.  Bailey  proposed  to  leave  the  manner  of  electing 
Judges  to  the  Legislature;  but  it  was  voted  down. 

Mr.  Chapman  was  opposed  to  having  Associate  Judges; 
he  also  opposed  the  present  organization  of  the  county 
courts;  but  the  plan  of  the  gentleman  from  Johnson  would 
go  to  fix  in  the  constitution  a  plan  something  similar  to  the 
present.  He  was  in  favor  of  the  people  electing  the  Dis- 
trict Judges.  The  plan  of  electing  Justices  had  worked 
well,  and  if  a  man  had  ambition  to  fill  the  office,  he  should 
possess  the  qualities  to  perform  its  duties  satisfactorily. 
The  main  effort  of  the  Judge,  he  concevied  would  be,  to 
discharge  his  duty  with  honesty  and  faithfulness,  and  in 
that  way,  secure  the  approbation  of  his  fellow  citizens. 
Any  other  course  would  prostrate  him  in  the  eyes  of  com- 
munity. 

Mr.  Sells  opposed  the  proposition.  He  said  if  the  Judge's 
term  was  about  to  expire,  and  a  man  of  controlling  influence, 
belonging  to  the  same  party  as  the  Judge,  should  come  into 
Court  with  a  suit  against  a  man  of  low  standing  on  the 
other  side,  it  was  almost  presuming  against  human  nature, 
to  suppose  that  the  Judge  would  not  incHne  to  favor  the 
first,  over  the  last,  in  order  to  preserve  his  friendship  and 
influence. 


A 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard,  iii 

Mr.  Kirkpatrick  said,  if  the  system  of  civil  jurisprudence 
now  in  operation  in  the  United  States  could  be  said  to  have 
ascended  to  the  pinnacle  of  perfection,  both  in  principle  and 
policy,  then  we  were  wrong  for  introducing  changes  of  the 
established  customs.  But  so  long  as  we  were  forced  to 
acknowledge,  that,  notwithstanding  our  unparalleled  system 
of  equal  rights  and  unequivocal  justice,  our  system  was  still 
imperfect,  no  apology  was  necessary. 

Mr.  K.  took  the  position,  first,  that  the  mode  of  appoint- 
ing judges  of  courts,  by  the  Legislature,  was  wrong  both 
in  principle  and  in  poHcy,  as  it  had  a  tendency  to  tramel, 
and  change  the  nature  of  our  elections,  and  tinge  in  some 
degree  the  most  brilliant  feature  of  a  representative  gov- 
ernment. Above  all  things,  we  should  strike  from  our 
system  the  mode  of  voting  by  proxy.  By  that  system  one 
of  the  long  eared  animals  of  his  friend  from  Scott,  might 
ride  an  honorable  judge  in  the  Representative  hall.  It  was 
not  only  the  beauty,  but  the  most  important  feature  of  our 
government,  that  ( as  men  were  variously  capacitated,)  we 
could  select  to  our  liking,  the  man  the  best  qualified  to  fill 
each  office  respectively.  But  if  we  had  our  representatives 
and  judges  thus  tied  together  in  their  election,  we  might 
vote  for  a  man  who  was  unfit  to  make  laws,  simply  because 
he  pledged  himself  to  vote  for  a  favorite  candidate  for 
judge,  and  thus  the  very  spirit  and  design  of  our  elections, 
be,  in  a  measure  frustrated.  A  representative  from  one 
county  might  be  elected  by  500  majority,  another  from 
another  county  by  but  one  majority,  and  in  the  Legislature 
they  would  have  an  equal  vote  for  judge,  and  then  the  will 
of  the  majority  be  disregarded.  But  the  most  formidable 
argument  brought  against  electing  judges  by  the  people, 
was,  that  the  judges  themselves  would  become  corrupt,  and 
endeavor  to  manufacture  political  capital  by  their  decisions. 
This  was  no  new  objection;  it  was  one  that  has  been  coex- 
istent with  the  elective  franchise;  it  was  one  that  had  been 


112  Convention  of  184.4.. 

and  was  still  brought  by  British  writers,  against  the  whole 
elective  and  representative  form  of  government.  But  the 
advocates  of  electing  judges  contended  without  hesitancy, 
that  the  bringing  of  all  officers  accountable  at  the  ballot 
box,  was  the  surest  safeguard  against  the  corruption  which 
gentlemen  feared  would  be  fostered.  The  way  was  blazed 
out  by  the  decision  of  courts  in  past  times,  those  decisions 
were  published  to  the  world,  and  inside  of  those  blazes 
they  must  travel,  or  otherwise  be  censured.  Through  the 
freedom  of  the  press  their  decisions  would  easily  be  con- 
trasted with  former  decisions,  and  corruption  ferreted  out. 
The  circumstances  of  the  judges  being  elected  by  the 
people,  was  surely  the  greatest  safeguard  against  corrup- 
tion. Besides,  the  people  met  the  lawyers  at  the  courts 
and  were  better  qualified  to  judge  of  their  ability  than  of 
the  ability  of  a  candidate  for  Governor,  who  perhaps,  they 
had  never  seen.  The  people  were  more  immediately  in- 
terested with  this  department  of  government;  here  we  ap- 
plied to  have  our  wrongs  redressed,  and  our  rights  defended; 
here  character  and  life  and  death  were  put  at  stake.  We 
should  choose  our  judges  ourselves  and  bring  them  often 
to  the  ballot  box. 

Mr.  Bissell  was  mortified  to  hear  the  declaration  of  the 
gentleman  from  Muscatine,  ( Mr.  Sells ).  He  regretted 
that  any  gentleman  had  so  poor  an  opinion  of  human  nature. 
He  relied  upon  the  experience  of  the  gentleman  from 
Johnson  in  this  matter.  Some  said  that  electing  the  Judges 
was  good  in  theory,  but  not  in  practice;  he  thought  it 
would  work  well  in  practice,  and  he  should  vote  for  try- 
ing it. 

Mr.  Lucas  withdrew  his  substitute  for  the  6th  section, 
and  Mr.  Hempstead's  amendment  came  before  the  Conven- 
tion, and  the  discussion  upon  the  same  point  was  continued. 

Mr.  Hooten  was  in  favor  of  electing  Judges  by  the  people. 
The  question  was  argued  a  little  in  Des  Moines  county,  and 


Fragments  from    The  Iowa  Standard.  113 

no  objections  were  expressed  to  the  plan.  Both  parties 
assented  to  it. 

Mr.  Fletcher  said  he  came  pledged  to  go  for  the  election 
of  Judges  by  the  people.  The  principle  of  the  right  of  the 
people  to  elect  all  their  officers,  had  been  conceded;  and 
now  the  question  was  resolved  into  one  of  expediency. 
Delegated  authority  was  always  liable  to  be  abused;  and 
as  was  said  by  the  gentleman  from  Jackson  the  system  of 
proxy  voting  marred  the  beauty  and  symmetry  of  our  form 
of  government.  We  elected  Legislatures  to  make  laws, 
Judges  to  administer  them,  and  an  Executive  to  enforce 
them.  These  departments  should  all  be  kept  separate  and 
independent.  It  was  in  this  point,  if  anywhere,  that  the 
argument  of  the  gentleman  from  Henry  against  the  Veto 
power  possessed  force — separating  the  powers  and  func- 
tions of  Governor  from  the  duties  of  the  Legislature,  and 
preserving  the  independence  of  the  different  departments. 
— The  argument  that  Judges  who  were  elected  would  be 
liable  to  bias  for  and  against  individuals,  would,  if  good, 
extend  to  requiring  that  the  Judge  should  not  even  be  a 
resident  of  the  District  in  which  he  held  Courts.  He  should 
also  be  guarded  by  an  officer  of  the  law,  as  were  jurors,  and 
not  permitted  to  have  intercourse  with  any. — He  would 
have  to  be  hke  a  Northern  ice-berg,  cold  and  passionless. 

Mr.  Peck  said,  individually  he  felt  convinced  by  the  argu- 
ments of  gentlemen,  of  the  propriety  of  electing  the  Judges; 
but  he  would  be  obliged  to  vote  against  the  measure,  in 
order  to  represent  the  views  of  his  constituents. 

[The  remainder  of  this  day's  proceedings  will  appear 
next  week.] 


114  Convention  of  i8^. 

Thursday,  Oct.  24,  1844. 

[Concluded  from  last  week.] 

Mr.  McKean  said  he  should  vote  against  the  amendment, 
and  that  vote  would  be  in  accordance  with  his  views  here- 
tofore publicly  expressed  and  generally  understood  among 
his  constituents.  He  was  in  favor  of  the  election  of  the 
Judges  of  the  Supreme  and  District  Courts  by  the  Legisla- 
ture.— He  should  not  now  give  the  reasons  in  favor  of  that 
measure;  it  is  an  old  method,  founded  on  wisdom  and  tested 
by  experience;  it  is  the  method  adopted  in  every  State  in 
the  Union  with  but  one  solitary  exception,  and  it  becomes 
incumbent  upon  those  who  advocate  a  departure  from  the 
established  rule  to  show  good  reason  for  the  change.  He 
only  proposed  to  point  out  a  few  errors  into  which  gentle- 
men had  fallen  in  regard  to  this  subject.  The  only  argu- 
ment offered  in  favor  of  electing  the  Judges  by  the  people 
amounts  to  this,  that  the  people  possess  the  sovereign 
power,  and  should  therefore  elect  all  their  officers.  Now, 
there  was  one  great  error  that  runs  through  all  their  reason- 
ing upon  this  subject;  an  error  into  which,  he  had  observed, 
gentlemen  on  this  floor  had  frequently  fallen;  that  is  to 
suppose,  because  the  people  possess  the  sovereign  power 
of  the  State,  that  they  must  necessarily  exercise  that  power 
directly  themselves,  or  that  they  desired  to  do  so.  This 
reasoning,  if  carried  out,  would  lead  to  results,  fatal  alike 
to  the  stability  of  the  government  and  to  the  rights  and 
liberties  of  the  individual  citizen.  If,  said  Mr.  McK.,  this 
doctrine  be  correct,  why  is  it  that  we  sit  here  deliberating 
from  day  to  day,  upon  the  subject  of  a  Constitution? — why 
is  it  that  we  had  before  us  so  many  lengthy  reports? — and 
why  did  we  expend  so  much  care  and  labor  to  adjust  the 
various  departments  of  the  Government,  and  to  prescribe 
their  respective  powers  and  duties,  and  to  provide  suitable 
checks  and  balances  to  regulate  those  powers  ?     If  such 


Fragments  from    The  lozva  Standard.  115 

doctrine  was  to  prevail  we  had  better  adjourn  at  once; 
go  home,  and  leave  the  people  to  exercise  all  the  powers 
of  Government  directly.  Gentlemen  had  admitted  that  it 
is  necessary,  (or  at  least  expedient,)  that  the  Judges  of  the 
Supreme  Court  should  not  be  elected  directly  by  the  people. 
Now,  he  contended,  that  if  there  is  any  reason  why  the 
Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  should  not  be  elected  in  that 
manner,  the  reasoning  applied  with  equal,  if  not  greater, 
force  to  the  election  of  Judges  of  the  District  Court.  The 
Supreme  Court  was  to  have  only  appellate  jurisdiction, 
while  in  the  District  Court  a  full  and  complete  trial  took 
place,  all  criminal  cases  came  under  its  jurisdiction,  and 
from  its  decisions  there  was  no  appeal  that  gave  a  new  trial 
in  the  Court  above.  It  had  been  asked,  why  the  objections 
to  the  proposed  method  of  electing  the  Judges  did  not  apply 
to  the  election  of  Justices  of  the  Peace;  the  distinction  was 
obvious.  Justices  of  the  Peace  had  only  a  limited  jurisdic- 
tion and  from  their  decisions  there  was  an  appeal;  and  on 
the  appeal  a  new  and  complete  trial  in  the  District  Court. 
There  was  no  parallel  between  the  two  cases.  Gentlemen, 
said  Mr.  McK.,  had  referred  to  the  cases  of  Associate 
Judges  being  elected  by  the  people,  in  some  of  the  States. 
In  the  Constitutions  of  those  States  it  was  expressly  pro- 
vided, that  the  Associate  Judges  should  not  constitute  a 
quorum  for  the  trial  of  criminal  and  equity  cases.  The  ex- 
ample, therefore  furnished  no  argument  in  favor  of  the 
election  of  the  District  Judges.  It  was  urged  that  elections 
by  delegated  power  were  inconsistent  with  our  form  of 
government.  The  amendment  provided  that  the  Judges 
should  be  elected  by  the  qualified  electors  of  their  respect- 
ive districts.  It  was  not  to  be  denied  that  the  people  had 
the  right  and  the  power  of  government;  but  the  question 
arose  who  were  the  people  ?  The  answer  was,  the  people 
of  the  whole  State — and  not  a  portion  of  the  people  of  the 
State.     The   people    of    the    State    may    delegate    certain 


ii6  Convention  of  1844. 

powers  to  the  people  of  a  district — of  a  county — of  a  town- 
ship— or  to  a  particular  society  for  particular  purposes ;  still 
they  were  delegated  powers,  as  much  so  as  if  exercised  by 
any  of  the  departments  of  the  government,  and  the  people 
of  the  district  were  only  agents  of  the  people  of  the  State. 
The  plan  proposed  does  not,  therefore,  provide  for  the 
election  of  the  Judges  by  the  people,  but  by  delegates. 
And  would  gentlemen  pretend  to  say  that  the  people  of  the 
district  were  alone  interested  in  the  Court  ?  that  they  alone 
were  to  be  affected  by  its  decisions  ?  It  cannot  be  seriously 
asserted.  Not  only  every  individual  in  the  State,  but  the 
property  of  non-residents  might  be  affected  by  its  decision. 
The  great  error  consisted  in  supposing  that  the  qualified 
electors  were  the  people.  They  constituted  only  a  portion 
of  the  people.  In  the  Territory  they  amounted  at  present 
to  about  one-eighth  of  the  entire  population,  so  that  at  least 
seven-eighths  of  the  people  of  the  district  would  have  no 
voice  in  the  selection.  If  the  arguments  of  gentlemen  be 
good,  there  could  be  no  reason  why  they  should  be  so 
excluded.  Was  not  every  individual  liable  to  be  affected 
by  the  decision  of  that  Court  ?  Or  was  it  only  the  qualified 
voter,  whose  property  could  be  seized — whose  rights  could 
be  modified — whose  liberty  could  be  curtailed — or,  whose 
life  could  be  endangered  by  its  decision  ?  Every  individual 
had  rights,  independent  of  the  community  in  which  he  lived, 
and  it  might  frequently  happen — it  often  did  happen — that 
the  interests  of  the  qualified  voters  (males  over  twenty-one 
years  of  age)  were  in  conflict  with  the  interests  of  other 
individuals.  Would  it  be  just  to  give  the  selection  of  the 
Judge,  who  is  to  decide  between  them,  to  one  of  the  parties? 
If  the  Judges  were  to  be  elected  by  the  people,  every  indi- 
vidual in  the  State  should  have  a  voice  in  that  election, 
which  would  be  wholly  impracticable.  Did  gentlemen  ask, 
why  the  same  objections  did  not  arise  in  regard  to  the  elec- 
tion of  representatives  ?     I  answer  that  the  object  of  the 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  117 

Legislative  Department  is  to  embody  public  opinion  into 
the  forms  of  law.  Its  action  is  upon  general  subjects, 
affecting  whole  classes  of  people,  while  the  judiciary  de- 
cides individual  cases,  affecting  individuals  directly.  The 
Legislature,  though  chosen  only  by  the  voters,  represents 
the  people  who  could  make  themselves  heard  by  petition 
and  remonstrance,  or  direct  by  instructions;  the  business  of 
the  Judiciary  was  to  decide  between  the  people  and  the 
individual.  In  order  to  make  the  Legislature  better  ac- 
quainted with  the  interests  and  wishes  of  the  people,  the 
power  of  choosing  Representatives  was  delegated  to  small 
districts.  But  judicial  decisions  should  never  be  influenced 
by  local  interests.  There  was  no  analogy  between  the 
objects  or  duties  of  the  two  departments,  and  there  could  be 
no  reason  why  they  should  be  elected  in  the  same  manner. 

There  was  one  other  view  of  the  subject  he  wished  to 
present.  It  was  proposed  to  give  the  Legislature  the 
power  to  legislate  upon  certain  important  subjects,  by  sub- 
mitting their  acts  to  the  qualified  voters  for  approval,  before 
taking  effect  as  laws.  Now,  suppose  that  the  Legislature, 
impressed  with  no  very  great  sense  of  responsibility,  should 
pass  an  act,  violating  the  rights  of  an  individual,  and  that 
act  be  approved  by  a  majority  of  the  voters,  as  would  most 
probably  happen  in  times  of  high  party  excitement,  if  the 
law  were  passed  by  a  dominant  party.  Suppose  further, 
that  the  constitutionality  of  that  law  were  questioned,  and  a 
Judge  to  be  elected:  the  candidate  pledging  himself  to  sus- 
tain the  law  would  be  elected;  and  where  would  be  the 
remedy  of  the  individual,  whose  rights  were  violated  ? 
We  had  adopted  a  bill  of  rights,  the  object  of  which  was 
to  secure  and  perpetuate  the  rights  of  the  individual  citizen. 

The  rights  therein  guaranteed  were  to  remain  forever 
inviolate.  They  were  never  to  be  curtailed  by  any  modifi- 
cation of  our  form  of  Government  or  change  in  our  Con- 
stitution.    They  were  not  to  be  infringed  upon,  either  by 


ii8  Convention  of  184.4. 

any  department  of  the  government,  or  by  the  people  them- 
selves. But  there  was  an  end  to  all  security  for  those 
rights,  if  these  propositions  were  adopted;  the  constitutional 
guarantee  was  of  no  force.  He,  said  Mr.  McK.,  was  in 
favor  of  protecting  the  people  in  all  their  rights  and  privi- 
leges; but  he  wanted  to  effect  that  object  in  a  different 
manner,  than  that  proposed  by  some  gentlemen.  He 
would  not  effect  that  object  by  destroying  all  constitutional 
guards,  and  removing  from  the  machinery  of  Government 
all  the  checks  and  balances  that  have  been  found  to  be 
salutary  and  wise.  He  would  protect  the  people  by  se- 
curing the  individual — protect  the  individual,  and  the  people 
were  all  cared  for. 

Mr.  Strong  said  he  would  state  his  reasons  for  the  course 
that  he  should  pursue. — He  and  the  gentleman  (Mr.  Mc- 
Kean,)  were  elected  from  the  same  county;  at  home  he 
had  taken  different  grounds  from  his  colleague,  and  the 
same  constituents  had  elected  them  both.  That,  he  thought, 
would  show  that  the  question  of  the  Judges,  had  not  turned 
the  scale.  He  was  in  favor  of  electing  the  Judges  by  the 
people;  he  should  not  reply  to  the  arguments  of  the  gentle- 
men in  opposition.  His  only  object  was  to  draw  out  the 
arguments  of  his  opponents.  He  had  sometimes  observed 
on  this  floor,  that  the  arguments  of  the  opponents  of  a 
measure,  made  converts  to  it. 

Mr.  Harrison  said  some  few  remarks  might  be  called  for 
from  him,  as  he  should  take  a  different  course  here  upon 
this  question  from  what  he  did  before  his  constituents.  He 
had  then  stated  that  he  should  oppose  a  proposition  to 
elect  the  Judges  by  the  people.  It  was  proposed  to  ap- 
point the  Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  by  joint  ballot  of 
the  Legislature,  and  to  elect  the  District  Judges  by  the 
people.  Both  modes  were  objected  to;  if  there  were  evils, 
they  would  probably  about  balance  each  other.  He 
believed  all  conceded  the  abstract  right  of  the  people  to 


Pragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  119 

elect  the  Judges — he  tho't  it  was  worth  while  to  make  the 
experiment  and  see  whether  the  principle  would  work  well 
in  practice.  The  question  was  one  of  expediency  alone. 
Let  us  make  the  trial.  He  felt  a  confidence  that  the  people 
would  not  select  bad  and  improper  persons  to  be  their 
Judges.  If  his  constituents  blamed  him  for  the  vote  he 
was  about  to  give,  they  would  blame  him  for  thinking 
them  more  capable  than  they  were. 

The  question  was  now  taken  upon  Mr.  Hempstead's 
proposition,  and  was  decided  in  the  affirmative,  as  follows: 

Yeas — Messrs.  Benedict,  Bissell,  Blankenship,  Bratton, 
Charleton,  Chapman,  Crawford,  Davidson,  Delashmutt, 
Durham,  Evans,  Fletcher,  Galbraith,  Gehon,  Gower,  Hale, 
Harrison,  Hempstead,  Hooten,  Kirkpatrick,  Langworthy, 
Lucas,  Marsh,  McAtee,  O'Brien,  Olmstead,  Price,  Quinton, 
Ripley,  Ross  of  Jefferson,  Salmon,  Shelleday,  Staley, 
Strong,  Thompson,  Whitmore,  Wright — 37. 

Nays — Messrs.  Bailey,  Brown,  Brookbank,  Butler, 
Campbell  of  Scott,  Campbell  of  Washington,  Clarke,  Cook, 
Cutler,  Felkner,  Ferguson,  Galland,  Grant,  Hall,  Hawkins, 
Hepner,  Hoag,  Hobson,  Kerr,  Lowe  of  Des  Moines,  Mor- 
den,  McCrory,  McKean,  Murray,  Peck,  Randolph,  Rob- 
inson, Ross  of  Washington,  Sells,  Taylor,  Toole,  Williams, 
Wyckoff,  and  the  President — 34. 

So  the  Convention  decided  that  the  District  Judges 
should  be  elected  by  the  people;  whereupon  it  adjourned. 

Afternoon  Session. 

Mr.  Lucas  renewed  his  proposition  to  have  Associate 
Judges  elected  in  the  different  counties  to  sit  upon  the 
bench  with  the  District  Judges.  He  thought  the  aid  and 
advice  they  could  render  to  the  President  Judge  would  b  e 
most  salutary,  and  even  necessary. 

The  question  being  taken,  Mr.  L's  proposition  was 
defeated;  yeas  21,  nays  49. 


I20  Convention  of  1844. 

Mr.  Evans  now  moved  to  so  amend  the  report  that  the 
Supreme  Judges  should  be  elected  by  the  people. 

Mr.  Bailey  said  he  should  vote  for  the  proposition.  He 
thought  the  people  might  as  well  elect  the  Supreme  as  the 
District  Judges. 

Mr.  Chapman  feared  there  was  now  a  disposition  to  treat 
the  matter  lightly,  and  force  in  the  election  of  the  Supreme 
Judges,  as  a  matter  of  retaliation  for  the  Convention  having 
decided  that  the  people  should  elect  the  District  Judges. 
He  appealed  to  those  who  had  voted  for  the  election  of  the 
District  Judges,  to  stand  up  to  their  position;  or  they  would 
be  placed  in  a  very  undesirable  situation.  He  voted  upon 
the  principle  for  giving  the  election  of  the  District  Judges 
to  the  people.  It  was  an  experiment — but  he  had  no  fears 
of  the  result. 

Mr.  Hepner  thought  the  gentleman  from  Van  Buren 
was  not  going  to  act  upon  principle  upon  this  subject.  The 
friends  of  electing  the  District  Judges  had  gained  a  great 
victory,  and  they  should  be  satisfied.  His  feelings  were 
with  them  although  he  voted  against  the  proposition. 

Mr.  Evans  said  he  expected  to  call  down  the  eloquence 
of  the  House  on  his  proposition.  He  was  instructed  by  his 
constituents  on  that  point.  He  was  a  Democrat  and  so 
was  his  constituents. — His  principles  were  that  the  people 
should  elect  everything,  from  Constable  to  President.  He 
had  been  in  17  States,  and  lived  in  a  number,  and  he  found 
where  the  Judges  were  elected  by  the  people,  the  citizens 
were  safe.  Even  the  savages  of  N.  Y.  elected  their  Judges. 
[Here  Mr.  E.  referred  to  the  circumstance  of  trying  the 
Chief,  Red  Jacket.]  The  Democrats  of  the  North  were  in 
favor  of  giving  the  people  all  their  rights.  He  believed 
the  Democrats  of  the  South  were  tolerably  even  in  what 
they  did;  but  the  Democrats  of  the  North  were  firm  and 
always  consistent. — The  Whigs  were  united — they  had 
principles,  and  they  stuck  to  them.     Whigs  were  Whigs 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  121 

every  where.  Show  him  a  Whig  in  the  North  and  he 
would  show  you  a  Whig  in  the  South.  In  conclusion,  Mr. 
Evans  gave  the  Whigs  a  bad  character  for  devotion  to 
equal  rights,  and  expressed  a  hope  that  the  Convention 
would  adopt  his  motion. 

Mr.  Quinton  said  he  had  voted  for  the  other  proposition; 
but  it  was  as  an  experiment,  and  he  wanted  to  try  that  first. 

Mr.  Hempstead  thought  there  was  some  mischief  in  this 
matter;  he  saw  it  in  the  countenance  of  the  gentleman  from 
Van  Buren.  He  thought  the  next  motion  would  be,  (if  the 
present  were  adopted,)  to  strike  out  the  whole  section.  He 
did  not  doubt  but  that  the  gentleman  who  made  the  motion 
was  perfectly  sincere;  but  on  the  part  of  others  there  was 
a  sinister  design. 

Mr.  Hooten  was  not  quite  ready  to  go  for  the  election  of 
Supreme  Judges  by  the  people.  As  his  friend  (Hepner) 
said,  he  was  a  little  behind  the  age. 

Mr.  Cutler  thought  there  could  not  be  too  much  of  a 
good  thing.  He  voted  against  the  election  of  the  District 
Judges;  but  he  should  vote  for  the  present  motion. 

Mr.  Gehon  said  he  was  in  favor  of  electing  all  officers 
by  the  people.     It  was  their  right  to  put  up  and  pull  down. 

Mr.  Chapman  renewed  his  appeal  to  those  who  voted  for 
giving  the  people  the  election  of  the  District  Judges,  not  to 
put  a  club  in  the  hands  of  those  who  opposed  it  with  which 
they  might  destroy  all  that  had  been  gained.  Upon  them- 
selves would  lay  the  responsibility  of  defeat. 

Mr.  Hawkins  said  he  was  one  of  those  who  voted  against 
the  first  proposition. — The  Convention  had  decided  that  he 
was  wrong.  Now  should  he  wish  to  change  his  course 
and  go  with  the  majority,  the  friends  of  the  first  measure 
called  upon  those  who  supported  it,  to  vote  against  the 
present.  They  would  make  him  wrong  all  the  time.  If 
there  were  good  reasons  for  the  peoples'  electing  the 
District  Judges,  there  were  good  reasons  for  their  electing 


122  Convention  of  184.4. 

the  Supreme  Judges.  But  he  was  opposed  to  both,  and  he 
should  vote  his  sentiments. 

The  question  was  now  taken  upon  Mr.  Evans'  motion, 
and  it  was  lost;  yeas  20,  nays  50. 

After  some  further  proceedings,  the  report  was  ordered 
to  be  engrossed  for  a  third  reading. 

The  Convention  next  took  up  the  report  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  State  Revenue. 

The  first  section  of  the  report  was  in  the  following 
words : 

"Such  part  of  the  revenue  of  this  state  as  may  be  obtained 
by  direct  taxation,  shall  be  raised  by  a  tax  upon  all  lands, 
tenements,  goods,  chattels,  rights,  credits,  judgments,  stocks, 
monies,  and  all  other  property  within  the  state,  (excepting 
always,  the  property  of  the  United  States,  and  the  public 
buildings,  and  other  property  belonging  to  this  State,)  upon 
which  any  interest  or  profit  may  accrue;  and  also  by  a  pole 
tax,  and  by  a  tax  or  license  upon  professions,  faculties,  and 
such  other  branches  of  business,  as  shall  be  necessary  to 
render  the  burden  of  taxation  just  and  equal  upon  all." 

The  remainder  of  the  afternoon,  and  the  whole  forenoon 
of  Friday  was  consumed  in  efforts  to  alter,  amend  and  strike 
out  this  first  section,  (including  a  pretty  ample  discussion  of 
the  points  and  principles  involved.)  The  result  was,  that 
the  section  without  material  alteration,  was  ordered  by  a 
special  vote,  to  be  engrossed  for  a  third  reading.  On  Mon- 
day morning,  however,  Mr.  Ross  of  Jefferson  offered  to 
the  Convention  a  resolution  instructing  the  Committee  of 
revision  to  strike  the  section  from  the  report.  The  Con- 
vention adopted  the  resolution — 49  to  22.  This  effectually 
put  an  end  to  the  whole  matter;  and  for  that  reason,  we 
have  omitted  all  proceedings  upon  the  section,  both  today 
and  tomorrow.  The  Journal  of  the  Convention,  when  pub- 
lished will  show  how  members  voted  upon  any  particular 
point. 


Fragments  from  the  Iowa  Standard.  123 

Friday,  Oct.  25,  1844. 

Mr.  Gehon  offered  the  following:  "Resolved  that  the 
Legislature  shall  never  entertain  petitions  to  allow  negroes 
the  right  of  suffrage." 

Mr.  Hepner  thought  the  gentleman  from  Dubuque  would 
not  accomplish  his  object  in  that  way,  as  the  resolution 
would  merely  go  upon  the  Journals,  and  not  be  put  in  the 
Constitution. 

Mr.  Lucas  said  he  was  sorry  to  see  resolutions  introduced 
here  about  negroes. — The  question  of  suffrage  was  to  be 
fixed  by  the  Constitution,  and  there  was  no  occasion  for 
introducing  such  propositions  into  the  Convention.  He 
regretted  that  gentlemen  would  bring  them  forward. 

Mr.  Gehon  said  the  practice  of  presenting  negro  petitions 
to  the  Legislature  was  an  evil,  and  he  wanted  to  keep  it  out 
of  the  State  of  Iowa.  In  the  Legislature  of  this  Territory, 
and  in  Congress,  a  great  deal  of  time  was  consumed,  and 
much  excitement  caused  by  this  kind  of  petitioning.  It  had 
come  nearer  severing  the  Union  than  any  other  thing.  He 
would  not  undertake  to  say  that  negroes  were  better  or 
worse  than  the  white  man.  But  he  was  not  disposed  to 
recognize  them  here  as  equals,  and  he  did  not  want  them 
to  sit  at  his  table.  He  would  not  say  but  what  the  negro 
was  entitled  to  as  much  freedom  as  the  white  man,  he  pre- 
sumed he  was,  but  he  did  not  want  the  State  he  lived  in 
agitated  with  petitions  to  give  negroes  the  right  of  voting. 
He  considered  it  an  evil,  and  wanted  to  choke  it  off. 

The  resolution  was  laid  on  the  table. 

Mr.  Hall,  from  the  select  committee,  on  the  subject  of 
banking,  reported  in  lieu  of  the  several  rules,  contained  in 
the  report  of  the  committee  on  corporations,  the  following, 
to  come  in  as  the  4th  section  of  the  provisions  upon  the 
subject  of  Incorporations: 

Sec.  4.     The  General  Assembly  shall  create  no  Bank  or 


124  Convention  of  1844. 

banking  institution,  or  corporation  with  Banking  privileges 
in  this  State,  unless  the  charter  with  all  its  provisions  shall 
be  submitted  to  a  vote  of  the  people  at  a  general  election 
for  State  officers,  and  receive  a  majority  of  all  the  votes  of 
the  qualified  electors  of  the  State. 

The  Convention  resumed  the  consideration  of  the  report 
of  the  committee  on  Revenue. 

Mr.  Sells  moved  to  amend  the  3d  section,  so  that  the 
Auditor  and  Treasurer  of  State  be  elected  by  the  people, 
instead  of  by  the  General  Assembly,  as  provided  in  the 
report;  which  was  agreed  to. 

The  report,  as  far  as  related  to  Revenue,  was  then 
ordered  to  be  engrossed  for  a  third  reading. 

The  Convention  took  up  that  part  of  the  Report  of  the 
Revenue  committee  which  recommended  a  scale  of  salaries 
for  the  State  officers. 

The  committee  recommended  that  the  Governor  be  paid 
$1000  per  annum;  Secretary  of  state,  $500;  Treasurer, 
$400;  Auditor,  $700;  Superintendent  of  Public  instruction, 
$7005  Judges  of  the  Supreme  and  District  Courts,  $800. 

The  salary  of  the  Governor  being  first  taken  up,  Mr. 
Sells  proposed  $600,  Mr.  Quinton  $800,  and  Mr.  Gehon 
$1200. 

Mr.  Fletcher  said  the  Committee  had  taken  into  consid- 
eration whether  the  Governor  would  be  required  to  reside 
at  the  seat  of  government,  or  not.  They  presumed  he 
would;  and  considering  all  the  circumstances  of  removal, 
&c.  they  thought  $1000  would  be  little  enough.  . 

Mr.  Hooten  thought  the  salary  was  about  right  at  $1000. 
The  Governor  was  rather  than  else  considered  as  public 
property,  would  have  to  entertain  a  good  deal  of  company, 
&c.,  and  should  have  a  pretty  liberal  salary. 

Mr.  Davidson  said  he  was  one  of  those  that  liked  to  go 
up  very  much,  but  he  could  not  agree  to  do  it  here.  He 
could  not  support  his  friend's  (Gehon)  motion. — He  came 


Fragments  fro7n  the  Iowa  Standard.  125 

here  to  go  for  low  salaries.     He  did  not  like  $icxx),  but 
$1200  was  worse. 

Convention  adjourned. 


Afternoon  Session. 

The  Convention  resumed  the  consideration  of  the  subject 
of  salaries. 

Mr.  McCrory  moved  $950  as  the  salary  of  the  Governor. 

Mr.  Hall  moved  $750. 

The  above,  with  the  motions  of  the  morning,  were  all 
put  to  the  Convention,  and  rejected. 

Mr.  Gower  now  moved  a  reconsideration  of  the  vote  by 
which  Mr.  Quinton's  motion  for  $800  was  rejected,  and  the 
reconsideration  carried. 

Mr.  Gehon  moved  that  the  report  be  indefinitely  post- 
poned.    Lost. 

The  question  was  now  taken  on  the  motion  of  Mr. 
Quinton  to  strike  out  $1000  and  insert  $800;  and  it  was 
agreed  to;  yeas  42,  nays  27. 

So  the  Convention  estabhshed  $800  as  the  salary  of  the 
Governor. 

Mr.  Gower  moved  that  the  salary  of  the  Secretary  of 
State  be  $400,  instead  of  $500,  as  reported  by  the  com- 
mittee; but  the  motion  failed;  yeas  33,  nays  38. 

Mr.  Bissell  moved  to  strike  out  $400,  as  salary  of  the 
Treasurer,  and  insert  $300;  which  was  agreed  to;  yeas  37, 
nays  33. 

Mr.  Taylor  moved  to  strike  out  $700,  as  the  salary  of 
the  Auditor,  and  insert  $600. 

Mr.  Grant  moved  to  strike  out  $700,  which  would  leave 
the  salary  blank. 

Mr.  Lucas  said  he  hoped  gentlemen  would  pause  before 
they  reduced  salaries  so  low  that  competent  men  could  not 
afford  to  accept  them,  and  devote  their  whole  attention  to 


126  Convention  of  i8pf.. 

them.  One  gentleman  (Mr.  Hall)  said  a  lawyer  could 
attend  to  the  duties  of  Secretary  of  State,  and  practice 
besides.  This  was  not  the  right  view  of  the  case;  it  was 
of  the  greatest  importance  to  have  good  officers  at  the  com- 
mencement and  have  them  devote  their  time  and  attention 
to  placing  the  business  of  the  State  on  a  proper  footing. 
The  Auditor  was  the  most  important  office  in  the  State. 
He  had  charge  of  the  entire  financial  department — made 
out  estimates  of  the  expenses  of  Government — corresponded 
with  all  the  collectors  of  the  revenue  in  the  different  counties 
— passed  upon  all  accounts  to  be  paid,  &c.  If  he  committed 
an  error,  it  would  cost  perhaps  ten  times  as  much  as  the 
amount  of  his  salarj'  to  correct  it.  A  responsible  man  was 
needed  to  fill  the  office.  The  Auditor  being  to  be  elected 
by  the  people,  if  he  should  go  among  them  to  electioneer 
much,  it  would  cost  about  as  much  as  his  salary  would 
come  to. — Mr.  L.  was  a  member  of  the  committee  that 
made  the  report; — this  subject  was  well  considered,  and  it 
was  thought  that  the  sums  had  been  fixed  as  low  as  would 
be  reasonable. 

Mr.  Chapman  said  he  desired  to  pay  a  fair  price  for 
services  rendered,  but  he  was  not  willing  to  a  single  dollar 
for  dignity.  He  did  not  want  to  have  men  paid  to  live  as 
gentlemen,  with  no  services  to  perform.  In  the  city  of 
Washington  men  were  appointed  to  be  heads  of  Depart- 
ments, who  did  not  know  how  to  perform  hardly  a  single 
duty  of  their  offices,  but  had  to  go  to  their  Clerks  for 
instruction  in  their  duties.  He  did  not  want  anything  of 
that  kind  here.  What  were  the  duties  of  Auditor,  that 
they  could  not  be  performed  for  a  salary  of  $500  or  $600.'' 
A  farmer  toiled  from  the  rising  of  the  sun,  to  its  going 
down,  and  at  the  end  of  the  year  had  not  made  perhaps 
$100; — there  were  hundreds  of  men  quahfied  for  that  office 
who  labored  the  whole  year  for  less  than  half  of  $700.  In 
this  country  we  were  all  poor,  and  have  to  do  with  but  little. 


Fragments  from    The  Iowa  Standard.  127 

Mr.  Strong  said  he  came  with  a  desire  for  economy,  and 
felt  disposed  to  go  for  as  low  salaries  as  any  man;  but  he 
thought  gentlemen  were  disposed  to  reduce  them  too  low. 
They  seemed  to  forget  that  something  was  to  be  paid  for 
qualification.  We  paid  a  carpenter  $2.00  per  day  because 
he  had  skill  and  did  work  in  a  handsome  manner;  we  paid  a 
lawyer  $3  to  $5  for  a  few  words  of  advice,  because  he  had 
fitted  himself  to  give  that  advice;  and  so  with  other  things. 
He  was  not  willing  to  put  the  salaries  below  a  fair  price. 
He  had  no  capital  to  make,  and  he  wanted  to  do  what  was 
right  about  the  matter. 

Mr.  Ross  of  Jefferson  said  he  did  not  see  why  we  couldent 
get  official  services  as  low  here,  as  they  did  on  the  Eastern 
side  of  the  Mississippi.  The  Auditor  of  Indiana  was  paid 
only  $400,  and  he  lived  at  the  seat  of  government. 

The  question  was  taken  on  Mr.  Grant's  motion  to  strike 
out,  and  it  was  agreed  to;  yeas  52,  nays  19. 

The  question  was  now  taken  on  Mr.  Taylor's  motion  to 
fill  the  blank  with  $600,  lost;  yeas  23,  nays  47. 

Mr.  Kerr  moved  to  fill  the  blank  with  $500. 

Mr.  Shelleday  said  he  was  a  little  awkwardly  placed  in 
reference  to  this  matter.  He  was  a  member  of  the  com- 
mittee, and  the  amount  of  the  salaries  was  fixed  by  a  kind 
of  compromise;  so  he  found  himself  voting  against  some  of 
his  own  agreements.  He  desired  to  put  the  salaries  at  a 
fair  price,  and  pay  as  much  as  would  secure  the  services  of 
competent  and  faithful  officers.  He  knew  something  about 
the  Auditor  of  Indiana.  If  you  looked  into  the  laws  you 
would  find  every  year  a  act  or  resolution  authorizing  pay 
for  extra  services,  or  extra  Clerk-hire,  in  his  office.  He 
had  seen  the  same  thing  in  other  States.  If  there  was  not 
sufficient  allowed  the  officer,  he  would  make  it  out  in  some 
way  by  a  charge  for  extra  services. 

Mr.  Chapman  commented  upon  the  subject  of  Clerk-hire 
— and  renewed  the  expression  of  his  desire  that  the  officers 


128  Convention  of  iS/f.^.. 

should  not  receive  a  compensation  that  would  be  dispropor- 
tioned  to  their  duties,  and  render  them  a  kind  of  gentlemen 
pensioners  upon  the  government. 

Mr.  Hempstead  said,  that  to  accommodate  the  gentleman 
from  Wapello,  who  seemed  so  fearful  that  some  gentleman 
would  get  the  offices  of  the  State,  he  felt  disposed  to  make  a 
motion  that  no  gentleman,  or  man  of  respectability  should 
be  appointed  to  any  office  under  the  Government  of  the 
State  of  Iowa.  He  thought,  as  was  observed  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Lee,  on  another  occasion,  that  we  were  running 
this  thing  of  economy  into  the  ground.  The  public  offices 
of  the  State  were  places  that  required  talents  of  the  best 
order,  and  men  of  responsible  characters,  to  fill  them.  To 
procure  such,  it  was  absolutely  necessary  that  a  compensa- 
tion should  be  paid  that  would  justify  men  of  proper  quali- 
fications in  leaving  their  pursuits  or  occupations,  whatever 
they  might  be,  and  removing  to  the  seat  of  Government  to 
do  the  public  business.  Men  might  be  got,  it  was  no  doubt 
true,  to  take  the  offices  at  almost  any  salary,  but  if  you  did 
not  pay  them  enough  by  law  to  compensate  them,  they 
would  plunder  to  make  it  up.  There  was  no  economy  in 
niggardliness. 

Mr.  Quinton  thought  $400  was  enough  for  the  Auditor 
of  the  State  of  Iowa.  The  services  that  he  could  render 
would  not  be  worth  more  than  that  sum.  We  should 
establish  economy  here  in  the  action  of  this  Convention,  and 
it  would  run  through  all  the  transactions  of  the  State.  The 
salary  given  to  the  Auditor  of  Indiana  was  $1,000.  This 
he  conceived  was  no  more  for  Indiana  than  $400  would  be 
for  Iowa. 

Mr.  Ross,  of  Jefferson,  said  the  salary  of  the  Auditor  of 
Indiana  was  fixed  by  the  Constitution  at  $400  for  20  years. 

Mr.  Hempstead  said  he  would  correct  some  of  the  mis- 
takes of  the  gentleman  from  Keokuk,  (Mr.  Quinton).  He 
had  stated  that  the  Auditor   of   Indiana  received   $1000. 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  129 

Mr.  H.  would  read  from  the  American  Almanac  for  1844. 
The  Auditor  of  Indiana  was  there  put  down,  at  a  salary  of 
$1500;  the  Auditor  of  Illinois  received  $1850.  We  should 
pay  something  like  the  same  compensation  for  the  same 
services.  We  should  not  do  the  injustice  to  require  men  to 
perform  services,  and  pay  them  nothing  for  it.  The 
Auditor  of  this  State,  would  have  to  spend  his  whole  time 
in  the  public  service,  and  the  Auditor  of  Indiana  or  Illinois 
did  no  more.  When  the  duties  were  such  that  they  could 
not  perform  them  personally  they  employed  Clerks,  and  so 
it  would  be  here.  When  the  Constitution  of  Indiana  fixed 
the  salary  of  her  Auditor  at  $400,  money  was  of  far  higher 
value  than  it  was  now. 

Mr.  Quinton  said  the  gentleman  from  Dubuque  had 
waked  up  the  wrong  passenger.  He  should  continue  to 
advocate  economy  in  the  State  offices,  whether  it  was  dis- 
pleasing to  some  gentlemen  or  not.  He  had  read  from  the 
Revised  Statutes  of  Indiana  for  1838,  when  he  said  the 
Auditor  of  Indiana  received  $1,000.  He  presumed  that 
up  to  that  time  he  had  received  but  $400. 

Mr.  Harrison  said,  we  were  in  a  youthful  condition,  and 
were  poor,  and  we  could  not  afford  to  pay  such  salaries  as 
the  great  and  wealthy  State  of  Ohio,  and  other  old  States. 
The  duties  of  the  office  would  not  be  near  so  great  as  in 
those  States.  He  wanted  the  officers  to  share  something 
in  the  hardships  and  privations  of  the  citizens.  He  would 
not  have  them  gentlemen  of  leisure,  walking  about  the 
streets,  talking  with  their  friends,  &c.,  with  plenty  of  money 
in  their  pockets.  An  honest  man  would  perform  the  duties 
of  Auditor  as  well  for  $300  as  $1000.  If  he  was  not 
honest  we  did  not  want  him. 

Mr.  Fletcher,  (Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Revenue,) 

said  the  committee  thought  they  had  reduced  the  sums  fixed 

as  the  salaries  of  the  offices,  to  the  lowest  possible  amount, 

and  not  pass  the  verge  of  respectability.     He  felt  afraid 

9 


130  Convention  of  18^4. 

that  he  should  be  accused  of  courting  popularity,  but  the 
Convention  had  taken  that  imputation  off  his  shoulders. 
The  object  was  to  secure  men  of  the  best  business  talents 
in  the  State  to  fill  the  offices  of  the  State.  No  doubt  every 
school  master  and  couhterhopper  would  feel  competent  to 
do  the  duties  of  the  Auditor;  but  would  less  than  $700 
secure  a  man  of  good  business  talents?  The  gentleman 
from  Wapello,  who  seemed  to  be  the  champion  of  economy 
on  this  occasion,  voted  to  have  an  independent  Supreme 
Court,  of  three  Judges,  who  would  have  duties  to  perform 
for  perhaps  one  month  in  the  year.  To  be  consistent,  he 
should  vote  them  a  salary  of  about  $150,  and  let  the  Judges 
go  and  do  something  else  the  balance  of  the  year. 

Mr.  Chapman  said  he  wished  to  pay  all  that  was  neces- 
sary to  secure  the  services,  and  no  more.  The  duties  of 
the  Auditor  would  be  very  light,  and  need  not  occupy  his 
whole  attention.  Mr.  C.  if  competent,  could  do  in  three 
months  all  the  Auditor  would  have  to  do  in  the  whole  year. 

Mr.  Lucas  said  he  would  show  the  gentleman  that  he 
could  not  do  the  Auditor's  duties  so  quickly  as  he  supposed. 
The  Auditor's  duty  was  to  collect  the  plats  of  all  lands  sold 
in  the  State,  and  record  them  in  books  to  be  kept  for  that 
purpose;  he  had  to  open  and  keep  regular  books  of  account 
of  all  the  business  of  the  State;  his  duty  was  to  receive  the 
tax-lists  of  the  counties  and  record  them;  he  had  to  render 
exhibits  to  the  Legislature,  when  they  called  for  them;  he 
had  to  receive  and  examine  into  all  accounts  presented 
against  the  State,  for  settlement;  and  to  perform  various 
other  duties.  The  gentleman  from  Wapello,  he  thought, 
could  not  do  all  this  in  three  months,  unless  he  was  an  un- 
usually active  scribe. 

Mr.  Hall  said  the  supposition  that  we  should  pay  such 
large  salaries  to  our  officers,  was  based  upon  a  misunder- 
standing of  the  importance  of  our  little  State.  We  were 
just  commencing  to  totter,  and  not  to  walk.     The  duties  of 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  131 

the  officers  would  not  compare  with  those  of  the  great 
States  of  Ohio,  &c.,  with  their  millions  of  dollars  of  revenue, 
interest  on  public  debt  to  be  paid,  &c.  Their  duties  would 
not  be  so  great  as  supposed.  A  population  of  100,000 
would  not  need  to  pay  $700  for  having  their  accounts  kept. 
In  reference  to  the  tax  returns  from  the  counties  mentioned 
by  the  gentleman  from  Johnson,  the  Auditor  had  only  to 
receive  the  books  and  file  them  away. 

Mr.  Ripley  said,  gentlemen  had  endeavored  to  settle 
what  should  be  paid  to  the  Auditor,  by  a  comparison  with 
other  occupations,  to  which  were  paid  so  much  a  day.  But 
they  had  not  thrown  any  light  upon  his  mind.  He  was 
still  in  the  dark.  He  felt  something  like  a  young  justice 
just  going  into  office,  who  asked  the  old  one  how  he  did  in 
cases  when  the  testimony  on  both  sides  was  so  nearly  even 
that  he  could  not  make  up  his  mind.  The  old  justice 
replied  that  then  he  decided  conscientiously.  He  was  like 
the  justice;  the  speeches  and  great  eloquence  of  gentlemen 
had  not  given  him  any  light,  and  he  should  have  to  decide 
conscientiously. 

Mr.  Bissell  supported  the  reduction  of  the  salary,  and 
referred  to  the  State  of  Vermont,  which  paid  the  Auditor 
$1.50  per  day  during  the  session  of  the  Legislature,  and 
$150  per  annum.  He  did  not  want  to  support  government 
officers  at  high  salaries,  to  ride  about  in  their  coaches  and 
sport  gold  spectacles.  Mr.  B.,  in  this  latter,  did  not  allude 
to  the  gentleman  from  Dubuque.  He  did  not  want  them 
paid  for  giving  wine  parties,  and  electioneering  the  Legis- 
lature. They  should  walk  from  their  residence  to  their 
offices,  as  other  citizens. 

The  question  was  now  taken  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Kerr, 
to  fill  the  blank  with  $500,  and  it  was  agreed  to;  yeas  46, 
nays  25. 

So  the  salary  of  the  Auditor  was  fixed  at  $500. 

Mr.  Cook  moved  to  omit  entirely  from  that  place;  the 


132  Convention  of  1844.. 

subject  of  the  salary  of  the  Superintendent  of  Public 
Instruction,  which  was  agreed  to. 

Motions  were  made  to  raise  and  reduce  the  salaries  of 
the  Supreme  Judges  from  what  was  fixed  in  the  report  of 
the  committee,  but  failed. 

Mr.  Hawkins  suggested  that  there  was  an  inequality  in 
the  salaries  given  to  the  Treasurer  and  those  to  the  other 
officers.  The  Treasurer  was  subject  to  great  responsibility 
— would  have  to  give  bonds  in  a  very  heavy  sum — would 
have  to  make  good  all  counterfeit  money  that  he  might 
take,  &c. 

Mr.  Grant  now  moved  the  Previous  Question,  and  the 
report  was  ordered  to  be  engrossed  for  a  third  reading; 
whereupon  the  Convention  adjourned. 


Saturday,  Oct.  26,  1844. 

Mr.  Gower  presented  resolutions  for  the  appointment  of 
committees  to  draft  an  address  to  the  people  of  the  Terri- 
tory, along  with  the  Constitution;  also,  a  memorial  to  Con- 
gress, to  accompany  the  Constitution ;  which  were  laid  upon 
the  table. 

The  Convention  took  up  the  report  of  the  Committee  on 
the  Schedule. 

The  8th  section  of  the  report  having  been  read,  (which 
provided  for  the  representation  of  the  counties  in  the  Legis- 
lature.) 

Mr.  Chapman  moved  to  amend  it  by  giving  an  additional 
representative  to  the  counties  of  Appanoose  and  Kishke- 
kosh  jointly. 

Mr.  Galbraith  supported  his  colleague's  motion.  The 
district  in  which  those  counties  were  situated  had  more 
population  than  the  county  of  Jefferson,  which  had  assigned 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  133 

to  it  one  Representative  the  most.  The  district  would  still 
present  a  surplus  of  400,  after  being  granted  the  additional 
Representative  asked  for. 

Mr.  Lowe,  of  Des  Moines,  said  he  was  not  opposed  to 
granting  the  additional  Representative  asked  for,  if  the 
Convention  was  willing.  The  only  question  was,  about 
raising  the  members  over  the  maximum  fixed  by  the  com- 
mittee (which  was  38  to  the  House). 

After  some  remarks  by  Mr.  Quinton,  in  support  of  Mr. 
Chapman's  amendment, 

Mr.  Hall  moved  to  recommit  the  8th  section  to  the  com- 
mittee on  the  Schedule,  with  instructions  to  reduce  the 
whole  number  of  Senators  and  Representatives  to  40. 

The  Convention  adjourned. 

Afternoon  Session. 

The  question  being  upon  the  motion  of  Mr.  Hall,  to 
recommit  the  8th  section, 

Mr.  Hepner  opposed  the  recommitment,  he  said  the  sub- 
ject was  a  difficult  one — the  committee  had  spent  a  good 
deal  of  time  in  making  the  adjustment  and  it  probably 
could  not  be  materially  bettered.  The  number  40  would 
suit  the  county  of  Henry  precisely;  so  other  counties  might 
be  suited  with  some  other  number  that  they  might  propose ; 
but  it  was  not  possible  to  please  all  precisely. 

Mr.  Hall  said  he  did  not  think  of  Henry  county.  He 
meant  the  reduction  made  so  as  to  lessen  the  expenses  of 
the  State.  He  had  rather  see  30  than  50  in  the  Legisla- 
ture. Lee  county  had  5  representatives,  with  a  population 
of  10,000.  This  was  unnecessarily  large,  and  equalled  the 
representation  of  counties  of  100,000  inhabitants  in  the  old 
States. 

Mr.  Peck  said  the  people  were  in  favor  of  having  a  full 
representation.     It   was    necessary  in   order  to   represent 


134  Convention  of  184^. 

small  districts  fairly  without  producing  inequalities.  There 
was  a  mistake  about  the  population  of  Lee  county,  it  was 
at  least  2,000  more  than  returned  by  the  census.  One 
township  of  150  voters  was  not  returned  at  all.  Fort  Mad- 
ison and  the  adjacent  settlements  were  returned  at  iioo, 
which  was  a  gross  error.  The  population  was  double  that. 
He  would  go  for  another  representative  being  given  to 
Appanoose  and  Kishkekosh,  and  also  to  other  districts  if  it 
was  shown  to  be  just.  Full  representation  Mr.  P.  thought 
was  really  conducive  to  economy  and  was  much  more  satis- 
factory. 

The  question  was  now  taken  on  Mr.  Hall's  motion,  and 
it  was  disagreed  to. 

The  question  was  next  taken  on  Mr.  Chapman's  motion, 
and  it  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Quinton  moved  to  give  an  additional  Representative 
to  Keokuk  and  Mahaska.  The  population  of  Keokuk  was 
1890;  that  of  Mahaska  had  not  been  returned,  but  he  was 
informed  by  the  Delegate  from  that  county,  whose  son  had 
assessed  it,  that  the  population  was  3000.  The  county  of 
Davis  exhibited  a  fraction  of  400,  which  if  reckoned  with 
Keokuk  and  Mahaska  would  entitle  them  to  an  additional 
Representative.  That  district  of  country  was  enlarging 
with  unexampled  rapidity,  and  was  justly  entitled  to  a 
heavier  representation. 

The  question  being  taken  on  Mr.  Quinton's  motion,  it 
was  lost;  yeas  26,  nays  40. 

Mr.  Langworthy  moved  to  amend  the  8th  section  so  as 
to  give  Dubuque  county  two  members  of  the  House,  in- 
stead of  one,  as  provided  in  the  report.  The  population  of 
that  county  had  not  been  correctly  returned.  It  was  actually 
between  5000  and  6000. 

Mr.  L's  motion  was  defeated. 

Mr.  Hobson  moved  to  amend  the  9th  section  by  adding 
as  follows: 


i 
\ 

i 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  135 

"Iowa  City,  in  Johnson  county,  shall  be  the  seat  of  Gov- 
ernment till  the  year  1865,  and  until  removed  by  law." 

The  question  was  taken  upon  the  above  by  yeas  and 
nays,  and  it  was  decided  in  the  affirmative,  as  follows : 

Yeas — Messrs.  Benedict,  Bissell,  Brookbank,  Campbell 
of  Scott,  Campbell  of  Washington,  Clarke,  Cook,  Crawford, 
Evans,  Felkner,  Fletcher,  Gehon,  Gower,  Grant,  Harrison, 
Hempstead,  Hoag,  Hobson,  Hooten,  Kirkpatrick,  Lang- 
worthy,  Lowe  of  Des  Moines,  Lucas,  Marsh,  Morden,  Mc- 
Crory,  McKean,  O'Brien,  Olmstead,  Peck,  Price,  Randolph, 
Robinson,  Ross  of  Washington,  Salmon,  Sells,  Strong, 
Taylor,  Toole,  Williams,  Wyckoff — 41. 

Nays — Messrs.  Bailey,  Blankenship,  Bratton,  Brown, 
Butler,  Chapman,  Davidson,  Delashmutt  Ferguson,  Gal- 
braith,  Galland,  Hall,  Hale,  Hawkins,  Hepner,  Kerr,  Mc- 
Atee,  Murray,  Quinton,  Ripley,  Ross  of  Jefferson,  Shelle- 
day,  Staley,  Thompson,  Whitmore,  Wright,  and  President 
—27. 

So  the  seat  of  Government  was  continued  at  Iowa  City 
for  21  years. 

Mr.  Grant  moved  to  add  to  the  9th  section,  that  the  first 
Legislature,  after  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution,  should 
assemble  as  above,  on  the  first  Monday  in  November; 
which  was  agreed  to. 

The  report  was  ordered  to  be  engrossed  for  a  third 
reading. 

The  Convention  took  up  the  report  of  the  select  com- 
mittee on  the  boundary. 

The  select  committee  had  amended  the  Northern  bound- 
ary so  that  leaving  the  Missouri  river  at  a  point  where  a 
due  West  line  from  the  "Old  North  West  corner  of  Mis- 
souri" i  itersected  the  same,  it  should  run  in  a  direct  line  to 
the  St.  Peters  river  opposite  where  the  Waton-wan  river, 
(according  to  Nicollett's  map,)  enters  it;  from  thence  down 
the  St.  Peters  to  the  Mississippi,  and  so  on. 


136  Convention  of  1844. 

Mr.  Langworthy  moved  to  amend  the  report  so  that  the 
boundary  should  run  up  the  Mississippi  to  where  the  45th 
parallel  of  North  latitude  crossed  the  same,  thence  West 
along  said  parallel  to  the  intersection  of  the  96th  parallel  of 
longitude,  and  thence  in  a  direct  line  South  to  the  Missouri 
river;  and  so  on. 

Mr.  L.  said,  the  amendment  he  proposed  would  make 
the  line  extend  up  the  Mississippi  sufficiently  high  to  take 
in  the  Falls  of  St.  Anthony.  The  size  of  the  State  would 
not  be  any  too  large.  It  would  be  less  than  Illinois,  less 
than  Virginia,  and  vastly  less  than  Missouri.  Iowa  would 
contain  less  than  60,000  square  miles.  Illinois  contained 
62,000,  Virginia  72,000,  and  Missouri  still  more.  He  had 
been  advised  by  the  Delegate  in  favor  of  taking  astronom- 
ical lines,  as  being  much  safer  and  better  than  rivers  and 
other  marks.  How  were  we  to  know  where  these  rivers 
were  situated  by  Nicollett's,  or  any  other  map?  Astro- 
nomical lines  could  be  defined  with  certainty.  Mr.  L.  was 
not  actuated  by  local  feelings — he  desired  to  secure  territory 
that  would  be  invaluable.  The  water  power  there  was 
almost  incalculable.  It  would  run  machinery  of  every  des- 
cription, and  before  many  years  it  would  be  one  of  the 
most  important  spots  in  the  Western  country.  If  running 
up  the  Mississippi,  as  he  proposed,  would  make  the  State 
too  large,  a  piece  could  be  taken  off  the  Western  line. 

The  question  being  taken  on  Mr.  Langworthy's  proposi- 
tion, it  was  lost;  yeas  29,  nays  33. 

Mr.  Chapman  moved  that  the  report  be  engrossed  for  a 
third  reading;  pending  which,  the  Convention  adjourned. 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  137 

Monday,  Oct.  28,  1844. 

The  Report  of  the  Committee  on  State  Boundaries  was 
ordered  to  be  engrossed  for  a  third  reading — Yeas  37, 
nays  30. 

The  Convention  took  up  the  Report  of  the  Committee  on 
Education  and  School  Lands. 

Mr.  Hooten  moved  to  fill  the  blank  in  the  first  section 
with  4  years  as  the  term  of  office  of  the  Superintendent  of 
Public  Instruction.     Yeas  28,  nays  37.     Lost. 

Mr.  Taylor  moved  to  fill  the  blank  with  2  years;  which 
was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Campbell  of  Scott,  proposed  that  the  Superinten- 
dent should  be  elected  by  the  qualified  voters;  which  was 
lost. 

Mr.  Shelleday  proposed  that  there  be  added  to  what  was 
already  named  in  the  Report  as  reserved  for  School  pur- 
poses, 3-5ths  of  the  5  per  cent,  net  proceeds  of  all  public 
lands  sold  in  the  State. 

Mr.  Lucas  said  he  thought  it  better  to  let  the  5  per  cent, 
fund  remain  for  purposes  of  Internal  Improvement.  It 
would  be  the  only  means  that  could  be  applied  to  objects 
of  internal  improvement,  unless  money  was  obtained  by 
direct  taxation.  He  indulged  hopes  that  a  branch  of  the 
National  Road  would  be  extended  to  the  State  of  Iowa,  and 
the  5  per  cent,  fund  was  the  only  original  basis  of  construct- 
ing that  road.  To  obtain  a  branch  of  the  road,  Iowa  would 
have  to  devote  her  share  of  the  5  per  cent,  to  that  object. 

Mr.  Quinton  said  the  argument  of  the  gentleman  from 
Johnson  had  not  convinced  him  of  the  propriety  of  leaving 
the  5  per  cent,  to  be  directed  in  the  way  he  spoke  of.  He 
was  in  favor  of  the  amendment. 

Mr.  Chapman  supported  the  amendment.  He  thought 
it  very  improbable  that  a  branch  of  the  National  Road 
would  ever  be  extended  to  this  State. 


138  Convention  of  1844. 

Mr.  Quinton  moved  that  the  whole  5  per  cent,  be 
embraced  in  the  School  Fund. 

Mr.  Hawkins  said  he  thought  it  would  be  better  to  retain 
2-5ths  of  the  5  per  cent,  for  making  improvements  in  the 
State. — If  the  whole  of  the  5  per  cent,  fund  was  given  to 
schools,  there  would  be  no  means  of  improving  a  road  or 
bridging  a  river,  other  than  taxing. 

Mr.  Davidson  was  in  favor  of  the  amendment.  He  pre- 
ferred making  a  bridge  over  ignorance,  to  anything  else. 

The  question  being  taken  on  Mr.  Quinton's  proposition, 
it  was  lost. 

Some  doubt  having  been  suggested  as  to  whether  Iowa 
would  obtain  a  5  per  cent,  fund,  Mr.  Langworthy  proposed 
as  a  substitute  for  Mr.  Shelleday's  motion,  the  following — 
"  Also,  such  per  cent,  as  may  be  granted  by  Congress  on 
the  sale  of  lands  in  this  State;"  which  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Taylor  proposed  that  the  Superintendent's  salary 
should  be  $700.  This  was  opposed  by  Mr.  Cook,  on 
account  of  the  want  of  certainty  in  the  services  that  the 
Superintendent  would  perform.  His  duties  would  be  fixed 
by  the  Legislature,  and  that  body  should  fix  his  compen- 
sation. 

Mr.  Durham  offered  a  substitute  for  Mr.  Taylor's  motion, 
that  the  Superintendent  should  receive  such  compensation 
as  should  be  fixed  by  law;  which  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Hepner  now  offered  a  substitute  for  the  first  section, 
that  the  Lieutenant  Governor  should  be  exofficio  Superin- 
tendent of  Public  Instruction  for  the  next  six  years. 

Mr.  Bailey  opposed  this.  He  was  in  favor  of  making 
the  office  elective  by  the  people;  that  would  bring  the  sub- 
ject to  their  notice,  and  cause  them  to  feel  an  interest  in  it, 
that  they  otherwise  would  not.  The  salary,  he  thought 
should  be  fixed  at  a  respectable  sum,  so  that  a  whim  of  the 
Legislature  should  not  be  able  to  reduce  it.  The  duties 
would  be  of  greater  importance  for  the  first  few  years,  than 
afterwards. 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  139 

Mr.  Hooten  concurred  in  the  views  of  the  gentleman 
from  Van  Buren.  If  the  Lieut.  Governor  was  charged 
with  the  duties  of  Superintendent,  the  office  would  be  in  a 
great  measure  covered  up  from  view,  and  its  importance 
lost  sight  of. 

Mr.  Hempstead  thought  the  proposition  a  good  one. 
Associating  the  Superintendency  of  Public  Instruction  with 
the  Lieut.  Governor,  would  give  the  office  dignity  and 
importance. 

Mr.  Lucas  said  the  Lieut.  Governor  might  be  called  upon 
to  exercise  the  functions  of  Governor;  during  the  sessions 
of  the  Legislature  he  had  to  preside  over  the  Senate,  and 
at  that  very  time  the  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction 
might  need  to  be  most  active  in  attending  to  his  peculiar 
duties.  The  amendment  was  calculated  to  throw  the  whole 
subject  into  confusion.  There  were  so  many  inconsistent 
amendments  and  propositions  on  different  subjects  that  he 
had  almost  given  up  the  hope  of  making  a  Constitution 
that  would  be  acceptable  to  any  body  when  they  came  to 
see  it. 

Mr.  Peck  said  there  was  in  the  Convention  a  great 
degree  of  unanimity  in  behalf  of  education,  and  there  was 
also  a  unanimity  for  economy,  and  but  few  offices.  He 
thought  there  was  nothing  incompatible  in  the  offices  of 
Lieut.  Governor  and  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction. 

Mr.  Chapman  was  astonished  at  gentlemen  talking  about 
economy  in  this  matter.  There  should  be  no  such  word 
as  economy  when  we  approach  the  subject  of  education. 
All  that  should  be  done  was  to  secure  a  proper  administra- 
tion of  the  funds.  Gentlemen  would,  with  a  stroke  of  the 
pen  cut  off  the  head  of  the  Superintendent  and  amalgamate 
the  office  with  one  of  a  political  character.  The  Lieutenant 
Governor  would  have  his  attention  occupied  with  the  regu- 
lation of  politics,  with  a  view  of  re-election.  Talk  about 
dignity! — there  was  no  dignity  in  such  a  union.     He  wanted 


140  Convention  of  184.4. 

to  have  the  office  of  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction 
independent  of  all  others,  and  its  occupant  such  a  man  as 
would  devote  his  whole  energies  to  the  subject  of  educa- 
tion :  letting  politics,  presiding  over  the  Senate,  and  exofficio 
Governor  go  where  they  should. 

The  question  being  taken  upon  Mr.  Hepner's  substitute, 
it  was  lost;  yeas  16,  nays  51. 

Mr.  Fletcher  offered  another  substitute,  that  the  Super- 
intendent should  be  elected  by  the  people,  hold  office  for 
two  years  and  receive  a  salary  of  $700. 

Mr.  Galbraith  proposed  $800,  and  Mr.  Hempstead  $960. 
Both  of  these  propositions,  together  with  Mr.  Fletcher's 
substitute,  were  disagreed  to  by  the  Convention;  and  the 
report  was  ordered  to  be  engrossed  for  a  third  reading. 

The  Convention  took  up  the  report  of  the  committee  on 
Corporations,  with  the  additional  4th  section,  reported  by 
the  select  committee  on  Banking. 

The  following  are  the  sections  of  the  above  report: 

"  Sec.  2.  The  assent  of  two-thirds  of  the  members 
elected  to  each  house  of  the  legislature,  shall  be  requisite 
to  the  passage  of  every  law,  for  granting,  continuing, 
altering,  amending,  or  renewing  any  act  of  incorporation. 

"Sec.  3.  No  act  of  incorporation  shall  continue  in  force 
for  a  longer  period  than  twenty  years,  without  the  re-en- 
actment of  the  legislature,  unless  it  be  an  incorporation  for 
public  improvement. 

"Sec.  4.  The  general  Assembly  shall  create  no  Bank  or 
banking  institution,  or  corporation  with  Banking  privileges 
in  this  State,  unless  the  charter  with  all  its  provisions  shall 
be  submitted  to  a  vote  of  the  people  at  a  general  election 
for  State  officers,  and  receive  a  majority  of  all  the  votes  of 
the  qualified  electors  of  the  State. 

"Sec.  5.  The  personal  and  real  property  of  the  individual 
members  of  all  corporations  hereafter  created,  shall  at  all 
times  be  liable  for  the  debts  due  by  any  such  corporation. 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  141 

"Sec.  6.  The  legislative  assembly  shall  have  power  to 
repeal  all  acts  of  incorporations  by  them  granted." 

Mr.  Galbraith  moved  that  the  whole  be  now  ordered  to 
be  engrossed  for  a  third  reading,  and  called  the  Previous 
Question. 

Mr.  Cook  demanded  the  yeas  and  nays  on  that. 

Mr.  Wyckoff  desired  to  know  if  a  division  of  the  report 
could  not  be  had;  there  were  some  things  in  it  he  could 
vote  for,  but  some  that  he  could  not. 

The  chair  replied  that  a  division  could  be  had. 

Pending  the  call  for  the  Previous  Question,  Messrs. 
Hempstead,  Wyckoff  and  Cook,  all  put  in  amendments; 
but  before  the  vote  upon  the  call  was  taken,  the  Conven- 
tion adjourned. 

Afternoon  Session. 

The  Convention  refused  to  sustain  the  call  for  the  Previ- 
ous Question,  on  ordering  the  engrossment  of  the  corpo- 
ration report;  and  the  business  of  proposing  and  voting 
upon  amendments  went  on  regularly. 

Mr.  Wyckoff  moved  to  add  to  the  6th  section,  the  fol- 
lowing : 

"Whenever  it  shall  be  made  to  appear  that  such  incor- 
porate body  has  neglected  to  comply  with  all  the  provisions 
of  its  charter." 

Mr.  W.  said,  as  the  matter  stood  now,  all  acts  of  incor- 
poration must  be  enacted  by  two-thirds  of  the  whole  Leg- 
islature voting  in  their  favor;  and  in  case  of  Banks,  the 
charter  afterwards  be  submitted  to  the  people;  but  a  simple 
majority  of  what  members  might  happen  to  be  present  at 
the  time,  could  repeal  a  charter;  and  that  in  all  cases  with- 
out a  vote  of  the  people.  That  was  one  step  beyond  what 
he  considered  Democracy,  and  he  could  not  support  it. 
He  was  a  Democrat;  but  he  could  not  vote  for  such  a  pro- 


142  Convention  of  184/f. 

vision  as  that.  The  Democrats  might  think  that  in  offering 
the  amendment,  he  was  trespassing  upon  their  rights,  and 
they  might  repudiate  him,  but  he  deemed  it  his  duty  to 
propose  it. 

Mr.  Hempstead  thought  the  power  to  repeal  might  be 
safely  left  with  the  Legislature.  It  would  not  be  so  suici- 
dal as  to  repeal  a  charter  when  the  public  interest  did  not 
require  the  repeal.  The  Legislature  of  the  Territory  had 
never  repealed  an  act  of  incorporation,  although  corpora- 
tions had  notoriously  violated  their  charters  in  this  Terri- 
tory. Mr.  H.  did  not  doubt  the  right  of  the  Legislature  to 
repeal  any  act  of  incorporation  by  them  granted,  without 
the  power  being  conferred  by  the  Constitution ;  although  he 
was  aware  that  decisions  had  been  made  to  the  contrary. 
In  Pennsylvania  the  Legislature  possessed  the  right  to 
repeal  all  Bank  charters. 

The  question  being  taken  on  Mr.  Wyckoff' s  amendment, 
it  was  lost;  yeas  25,  nays  43. 

Mr.  Galbraith  moved  to  amend  the  first  line  of  first  sec- 
tion, by  striking  out  "two-thirds,"  and  inserting  "a  major- 
ity;" which  was  agreed  to;  yeas  41,  nays  27. 

Mr.  Hempstead  moved  to  strike  out  the  4th  section,  and 
insert,  "  No  Bank  of  circulation  shall  be  established  in  this 
State;"  which  was  lost;  yeas  16,  nays  52. 

Mr.  Cook  offered  a  substitute  for  the  4th  section,  differing 
in  the  respect  of  not  requiring  but  a  majority  of  the  votes 
cast,  to  accept  a  charter,  and  also  permitting  the  Legislature 
to  prescribe  the  time  of  taking  the  vote.  The  substitute  was 
lost;  yeas  21,  nays  44. 

Mr.  Cook  now  moved  to  strike  out  the  5th  and  6th 
sections  of  the  report. 

Mr.  Chapman  proposed  to  amend  the  5th  section,  so  that 
the  liability  of  stock-holders  should  not  extend  beyond  the 
amount  of  stock  by  them  subscribed;  which  was  lost;  yeas 
20,  nays  46. 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  143 

The  question  was  then  taken  separately  upon  striking 
out  the  5th  and  6th  sections.  For  striking  out  the  5th, 
yeas  18,  nays  48;  lost.  For  striking  out  the  6th,  yeas  21, 
nays  46;  lost. 

Mr.  Cook  offered  the  following,  to  come  in  as  sec.  7th: 

"  Nothing  herein  contained  shall  be  so  construed  as  to 
apply  to  any  corporation  other  than  corporations  with  bank- 
ing privileges." 

Mr.  C.  said  he  thought  the  Convention  had  gone  as  far 
as  it  would  feel  disposed  to  go,  when  it  had  extended  these 
restrictions  to  corporations  for  banking  purposes,  and  that 
they  would  not  extend  the  war  to  all  sorts  of  corporations. 
He  had  set  still  with  all  possible  patience,  while  his  amend- 
ments were  voted  down,  one  after  another;  but  he  could 
not  sit  still  and  see  the  war  against  corporations  extended 
to  all  corporations  designed  to  associate  labor  and  capital  in 
our  future  State.  He  took  it,  from  the  votes,  that  it  was 
determined  there  should  be  no  public  improvements  of  any 
kind  made  by  the  State.  He  called  upon  gentlemen  from 
the  South  to  say  if  they  did  not  want  improvements  made 
there;  did  they  not  want  slack  water  navigation  on  the  Des 
Moines  ?  Some  of  them  had  already  told  him  that  they 
did.  It  would  be  a  great  benefit  to  that  section  of  country 
to  have  it  done.  The  State  would  not  do  it — one,  two,  or 
three  individuals  would  not  do  it.  Under  these  proposed 
restrictions  we  could  not  safely  associate,  nor  could  we  get 
capitalists  at  the  East  to  subscribe  anything  to  a  public 
improvement  here.  Our  policy  was  to  invite  capital  to 
come  among  us.  A  company  might  sometime  think  of 
running  a  Railroad  from  the  upper  part  of  this  Territory  to 
Keokuk,  so  as  to  avoid  the  two  Rapids  of  the  Mississippi. 
None  could  deny  but  what  this  would  be  desirable  and 
beneficial;  but  it  would  be  impossible  to  have  the  stock 
taken  under  the  provisions  now  before  the  Convention. 
No  individual  would  consent  to  subscribe  in  a  company  of 


144  Convention  of  1844. 

500  or  600,  or  1000  men,  where  their  acts  were  to  render 
his  property  all  liable  to  be  taken  from  him.  A  charter 
was  granted  by  the  Legislature  of  this  Territory  for  an 
improvement  in  Scott  county,  which  would  have  been  of 
incalculable  benefit  to  the  surrounding  country;  but  nothing 
had  been  done.  A  repealing  clause  was  put  to  it,  and 
nobody  would  take  the  stock.  He  undertook  to  say,  that 
if  a  charter,  such  as  was  granted  by  the  Legislature  of 
Massachusetts,  to  the  Western  Railroad,  or  to  the  Merri- 
mac  Manufacturing  Company,  had  been  given  to  the  Com- 
pany in  Scott  county,  the  stock  would  have  been  subscribed, 
and  the  work  in  progress.  If  this  doctrine  of  individual 
liability  and  repeal  of  charters  at  will  was  to  prevail,  there 
would  be  no  companies  for  improvement  formed  in  this 
State.  He  would  give  up  the  whole  matter  of  Banks,  and 
let  that  go,  if  the  subject  of  incorporations  could  be  so 
arranged  that  we  might  have  improvements  made.  He 
hoped  that  party  feelings  would  not  so  far  prevail,  as  to 
cause  the  Convention  to  forget  the  interests  of  the  State. 

Mr.  Bailey  said  there  were  numerous  improvements 
made  on  the  Des  Moines  river,  without  any  charter,  or  any 
law  whatever  about  it.  Individuals  associated  themselves 
together  without  any  law,  and  went  on  and  erected  dams, 
built  mills,  &c.,  and  one  individual  had  gone  East  this 
spring  to  get  spinning  frames  to  spin  wool. 

Mr.  Cook  inquired  if  any  individual  had  slack-watered 
the  Des  Moines? 

Mr.  Bailey  replied  that  there  had  not.  He  said  it  was 
singular  to  him  that  the  gentleman  wanted  to  take  from  the 
people  privileges,  and  not  permit  them  to  take  them  back 
when  they  pleased.  The  Legislature,  he  thought,  would 
not  be  likely  to  take  away  the  rights  of  a  Company,  unless 
they  had  done  something  to  deserve  it.  The  bias  of  the 
Legislature  would  be  the  other  way,  in  favor  of  the  rich 
monopoly. 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  145 

Mr.  Peck  said  the  individual  members  of  a  corporation 
ought  to  be  liable.  When  these  companies  made  a  profit, 
they  divided  it  among  themselves,  but  when  they  were  un- 
fortunate they  wanted  to  divide  it  with  the  community. 
The  Convention  had  already  decided  upon  these  points  and 
he  presumed  it  had  not  changed.  He  referred  to  the  law  of 
Massachusetts;  there  all  members  of  Corporations  were 
liable,  unless  otherwise  provided.  In  Rhode  Island,  also, 
individuals  were  liable.  A  gentleman  had  offered  in  Lee 
county,  if  he  could  have  a  certain  water  power,  to  erect  a 
factory  that  would  employ  300  hands.  He  had  the  money 
ready  to  do  it.  Mr.  P.  thought  there  was  no  danger  but 
what  improvements  would  be  made  by  individuals. 

Mr.  Lucas  said,  corporations  sometimes  extended  their 
debts  ten  times  further  than  their  capital  paid  in.  Suppose 
a  Company  with  a  capital  of  $100,000  should  buy  property 
to  the  amount  of  $500,000,  and  after  a  while  fail,  and  no 
recourse  upon  the  stockholders  beyond  the  amount  of  their 
subscription,  there  would  be  so  much  loss  to  the  community, 
that  it  could  not  obtain.  If  individual  liability  was  inserted 
in  the  charter,  it  would  make  the  stockholders  watchful.  It 
ought  to  be  in  all  charters. 

Mr.  Hempstead  said,  that  although  the  gentleman  from 
Scott  ( Mr.  Cook,)  had  begged  for  the  corporations  to  be 
permitted  to  exercise  their  exclusive  privileges,  he  hoped 
the  Convention  would  not  be  influenced  by  it.  Such  grants 
were  contrary  to  the  genius  of  our  institutions.  Other 
States  were  providing  against  their  being  made  without 
proper  caution.  The  new  Constitution  of  New  Jersey  re- 
quired two-thirds  to  assent  to  a  charter.  The  Convention 
had  struck  out  the  two-thirds  in  these  restrictions,  and  now 
if  the  right  of  repeal,  and  the  individual  liability  were  taken 
away,  things  would  go  on  in  the  old  manner.  In  England 
men  did  not  want  acts  of  incorporation  to  do  business.  If 
men  had  capital  they  put  it  together  and  did  business  with- 
10 


146  Convention  of  184.4.. 

out  special  privileges.  He  wanted  it  so  here.  Money  was 
power;  and  granting  acts  of  incorporation  was  concentrating 
money.  What  was  the  condition  of  the  laborer  in  factories 
in  Massachusetts  ? — it  was  the  condition  of  serfs  and  slaves. 
They  went  to  their  dinners  at  the  tap  of  the  bell,  and  they 
returned  at  the  tap  of  the  bell.  They  were  not  like  free 
American  citizens,  but  were  more  like  Southern  slaves. 
He  had  endeavored,  with  others,  to  keep  Banks  out  of  the 
State  of  Iowa;  he  had  stood  as  in  the  pass  of  Themopylae; 
but  he  had  not  been  able  to  succeed.  He  now  hoped  that 
some  check  would  be  placed  upon  corporations. 

Mr.  Hoag  said,  this  subject  was  of  much  importance 
to  the  State.  The  Convention  seemed  to  confound  Manu- 
facturing Corporations  with  Banks,  and  to  be  about  to 
place  them  upon  the  same  footing.  It  was  important  that 
this  should  not  be  done.  Manufacturing  might,  perhaps, 
be  carried  on  to  some  extent  under  these  restrictions;  but 
where  a  great  number  were  required  to  be  associated  to- 
gether individual  liability  would  not  seem  to  be  a  reason- 
able policy.  He  admitted  that  corporate  powers  had  been 
abused,  but  that  was  the  case  in  everything;  and  it  was 
no  just  argument  against  granting  incorporations.  If  a 
corporation  ran  in  debt  there  was  the  property  it  had 
bought,  and  the  creditor  could  take  it.  Manufactories 
were  of  unquestionable  advantage  to  a  country,  and  it  was 
to  its  interest  to  encourage  them.  This  was  an  excellent 
wool-growing  country,  and  woolen  manufactories  would 
be  desirable  to  work  up  the  wool.  A  company  with  a 
capital  of  $ioo,ocx)  that  should  estabHsh  a  factory,  would 
require  the  wool  of  25,000  sheep;  there  would  be  also  a 
large  consumption  of  farm  produce,  of  various  kinds;  all 
contributing  to  the  prosperity  of  the  country.  He  did  not 
see  why  any  should  be  so  tenacious  of  discouraging  the 
introduction  of  capital.  Capital  was  greatly  needed  here 
to  bring  into  use   the    advantages   of   the    country.      He 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  147 

wouJd  say  a  word  now  to  the  gentleman  from  Dubuque, 
(Mr.  Hempstead)  about  the  slavery  he  talked  of.  He 
presumed  that  gentleman  did  not  know  as  much  about 
the  condition  of  people  in  manufactories  as  he  did.  He 
had  been  engaged  in  manufacturing  business  for  12  years, 
before  coming  to  this  Territory.  He  was  acquainted  with 
the  Merrimac  and  other  companies,  and  he  knew  nothing 
about  the  slavery  that  was  spoken  of.  The  owners  of  the 
factories  were  generally  Whigs,  and  the  operatives  were 
very  usually  Democrats.  They  were  never  required  to 
stay  away  from  the  polls  on  the  day  of  election,  nor  turned 
out  of  employment  for  not  voting  as  their  employers  wished; 
he  had  never  known  an  instance  of  it.  He  challenged  the 
gentleman  from  Dubuque,  to  produce  an  instance  in  the  U. 
S.  in  which  corporal  punishment  had  been  inflicted  on  an 
operative  in  a  factory.  Where  there  were  hundreds  of 
hands  working  together,  there  must  be  some  regulations, 
and  set  hours  to  work.  They  worked  by  the  week  or  piece, 
as  they  pleased,  usually;  and  the  operatives  often  made  more 
than  the  owners.  Common  hands  who  were  stronger  and 
careful,  would  in  a  comparatively  short  time,  be  able  to 
buy  small  farms,  or  otherwise  go  into  business  for  them- 
selves. They  did  not  leave  the  factory  with  the  mark  of 
the  branding-iron  on  their  cheeks,  nor  of  the  whip  on 
their  back.  Was  this  hke  the  slavery  the  gentleman  had 
referred  to  ? 

The  question  was  now  taken  upon  Mr.  Cook's  proposi- 
tion, and  it  was  lost;  yeas  22,  nays  46. 

Mr.  Davidson  proposed  to  add  as  a  7th  section,  that  the 
property  of  the  people  of  the  State  should  never  be  used 
by  any  incorporated  company,  without  the  consent  of  the 
owner;  which  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Galbraith  moved  to  amend  the  4th  section,  by  ad- 
ding to  it  the  words  "cast  for  and  against  it;"  (so  that  a 
majority   of  the  votes  cast,   and  not  a  majority  of  all  the 


148  Convention  oj  184.^. 

votes  in  the  State,  should  be  requisite  to  accept  a  charter,) 
which  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Cook  moved  to  strike  out  of  the  5th  section,  the 
words  "at  all  times,"  and  add  to  the  end,  the  words  "after 
the  property  of  the  corporation  shall  have  been  exhausted." 

Mr.  C.  inquired  if  gentlemen  were  prepared  to  say  that 
when  a  corporation  owed  a  debt,  an  individual's  property 
might  be  taken  at  any  time  for  that  debt?  If  they  were, 
they  were  prepared  to  do  almost  anything.  A  company  in 
this  State  might  owe  a  debt,  and  a  stockholder  that  hap- 
pened to  be  in  Illinois,  New  York,  or  any  where  else, 
might  be  taken  for  it.  He  thought  if  the  individual  was 
rendered  liable,  after  the  corporation  property  was  ex- 
hausted, that  was  enough. 

Mr.  Hepner  said  the  gentleman  from  Scott  had  set  up  a 
terrible  lamentation,  but  he  did  not  see  that  there  was  any 
thing  in  the  case  to  complain  of.  It  was  not  probable  that 
any  body  would  be  taken  away  from  home,  for  the  debts 
of  a  corporation.  A  company's  debts  were  usually  owed 
around  in  the  neighborhood  where  it  was  doing  business. 
If  a  man  whom  the  company  owed  should  get  a  judgment 
against  it,  he  should  not  be  put  to  the  trouble  of  hunting  up 
corporate  property,  but  should  be  permitted  to  take  the 
property  of  a  stockholder  in  the  company  where  it  was 
handier.     This  was  the  way  it  ought  to  be. 

Mr.  Peck  thought  the  gentleman  from  Scott  was  unnec- 
essarily frightened;  suits  would  be  brought  against  the  Pres- 
ident, Directors,  and  Company,  and  no  individual  could  be 
sued  without  having  a  scire  facias  for  the  whole,  and  bring- 
ing them  up  to  answer  in  the  suit  with  him.  He  would 
have  his  defense  from  individual  responsibility  as  in  other 
cases. 

Mr.  Hawkins  said  that  might  be  in  existence  now,  or 
hereafter  must  conform  precisely  to  the  Constitution.  The 
corporators  were  by  that  to  be  made  personally  liable,  an4 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  149 

an  act  of  the  Legislature  could  not  make  it  otherwise.  If 
the  Legislature  should  undertake  to  say  that  suit  might  be 
brought  against  the  President,  Directors  and  Company,  it 
would  be  unconstitutional.  The  creditor  could  sue  whom 
he  pleased;  and  there  was  no  scire  facias  about  it. 

Mr.  Hempstead  (Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Incor- 
porations,) said  it  was  the  intention  of  the  committee,  that 
where  persons  had  claims  against  a  corporation,  they 
might  make  their  selection,  and  sue  the  corporation  or  in- 
dividual stockholders,  whichever  they  pleased.  In  drawing 
up  the  report,  he  had  occasion  to  examine  the  law  of  Mas- 
sachusetts and  Connecticut  upon  that  subject,  and  this  sec- 
tion was  almost  an  exact  copy  of  one  in  the  statute  of  the 
former  State.  The  plan  of  the  gentleman  from  Scott, 
would  make  a  nullity  of  individual  liability.  A  creditor  of 
a  company  might  look  for  corporation  property,  and  not 
find;  it  would  be  put  out  of  sight;  and  when  he  sued  the 
individual  stockholders,  the  corporation  would  come  into 
court  and  say,  we  have  got  property  that  you  did  not  see. 
In  this  way  the  creditor  would  be  put  to  trouble  and  ex- 
pense that  he  would  not  be,  if  permitted  to  sue  the  indi- 
vidual directly.  If  an  individual  was  damaged  by  suit 
being  brought  against  him,  the  corporation  would  no  doubt 
remunerate  him. 

Mr.  Grant  said,  as  the  Chairman  of  the  committee  had 
stated  the  object  of  the  provision  in  the  section,  he  would 
state  its  object,  as  he  understood  it.  The  object  was,  that 
the  property  of  partners  in  a  corporate  company  should  be 
liable  in  the  same  way  as  in  an  ordinary  commercial  copart- 
nership. There,  the  individual  property  of  a  member  of 
the  firm  could  not  be  taken  until  the  property  of  the  firm 
had  been  first  exhausted.  He  would  inquire  of  his  col- 
league, (  Mr.  Cook,)  if  he  knew  of  any  process  in  law  by 
which  the  property  of  an  individual  member  of  a  partner- 
ship could  be  taken,  till  the  partnership  property  was  first 
exhausted  ? 


150  Convention  of  1844. 

Mr.  Cook.     Yes. 

Mr.  Grant.  Well,  if  you  did  it,  I  would  slap  an  injunc- 
tion in  equity  on  you  quicker  than  you  could  say,  "Jack 
Robinson." 

The  question  was  now  taken  on  Mr.  Cook's  amend- 
ment, and  it  was  lost,  as  follows: 

Yeas — Messrs.  Blankenship,  Brookbank,  Campbell  of 
Scott,  Campbell  of  Washington,  Chapman,  Cook,  Delash- 
mutt,  Durham,  Felkner,  Ferguson,  Grant,  Hawkins,  Hoag, 
Hobson,  Kerr,  Langworthy,  Lucas,  McAtee,  McCrory, 
McKean,  Quinton,  Randolph,  Ross  of  Washington,  Sells, 
Shelleday,  Strong,  Taylor,  Toole,  Williams — 29. 

Nays — Messrs.  Bailey,  Benedict,  Bissel,  Bratton,  Brown, 
Butler,  Clarke,  Crawford,  Cutler,  Davidson,  Evans,  Fletcher, 
Galbraith,  Galland,  Gower,  Hale,  Harrison,  Hempstead, 
Hepner,  Hooten,  Lowe  of  Des  Moines,  Marsh,  Morden, 
Murray,  O'Brien,  Olmstead,  Peck,  Ripley,  Robinson,  Ross 
of  Jefferson,  Salmon,  Staley,  Thompson,  Whitmore,  Wright, 
Wyckoff  and  President — 37. 

Mr.  Grant  moved  to  add  to  the  report,  as  section  7,  that 
the  State  should  not  become  interested  in  any  banking  or 
other  corporation;  which  was  lost;  yeas  31,  nays  31. 

After  some  further  proceedings,  by  way  of  proposing 
amendments,  the  Convention  adjourned. 


Tuesday,  Oct.  29,  1844. 

Mr.  Lucas  offered  a  resolution  proposing  therein  seven 
articles  to  be  added  to  the  Bill  of  Rights. 

Mr.  Grant  from  the  Revision  Committee,  made  a  report 
suggesting  a  number  of  changes  in  the  phraseology,  &c.,  of 
the  various  Reports  of  a  Constitution. 

Mr.  Quinton  moved  to  reconsider  the  vote  of  yesterday 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  151 

by  which  the  Convention  refused  to  adopt  an  amendment  to 
the  report  on  Corporations,  forbidding  the  State  to  take 
stock  in  any  corporation — which  was  agreed  to;  and  the 
amendment  having  been  somewhat  amended,  was  adopted 
— ^yeas  44,  nays  21. 

The  Report  on  Corporations  being  under  consideration, 
Mr.  Chapman  proposed  the  following  as  an  additional  sec- 
tion: 

"  The  provisions  herein  contained  shall  not  be  construed 
to  apply  to  public  corporations." 

Mr.  Hepner  wanted  to  know  what  was  meant  by  public 
corporations. 

Mr.  Chapman  said  as  he  understood  the  provisions  of  the 
Report,  they  would  apply  to  counties  and  townships,  &c., 
and  the  goods  and  chatties  of  individual  citizens  might  be 
taken  for  their  debts.  These  organizations  were  described 
as  "  bodies  politic  and  corporate,"  and  they  would  have  to 
be  considered  as  corporations  and  subjected  to  the  same 
rules,  restrictions,  and  liabilities  as  private  corporations.  It 
was  this  consequence  he  wished  to  avoid. 

The  question  being  taken,  Mr.  Chapman's  amendment 
was  rejected — yeas  29,  nays  39. 

Mr.  Peck  now  proposed  a  substitute  for  the  whole  Report, 
not  varying  materially  from  the  original,  except  that  it 
provided  that  the  property  of  individual  stockholders  should 
not  be  taken  till  the  corporation  property  should  be  ex- 
hausted. 

This  substitute  the  Convention  rejected — ^yeas  6,  nays  59. 

The  Report  was  then  ordered  to  be  engrossed  for  a  third 
reading. 

The  Convention  took  up  the  report  of  the  Select  Com- 
mittee on  County  Organization. 

The  Report  provided  that  a  Sheriff  should  not  hold  office 
more  than  two  terms  in  succession.  Mr.  Sells  proposed 
two  years  in  six;  which  was  lost. 


152  Convention  of  18^/f.. 

Mr.  Bailey  proposed  to  strike  out  the  restriction  altogether. 
He  thought  the  people  should  not  be  restrained  from  re- 
electing their  Sheriff  as  much  as  they  were  a  mind  to.  It 
was  wrong  in  principle,  to  impose  such  a  restraint. 

Mr.  Bailey's  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Lucas  moved  to  add  to  the  report  that  there  should 
be  elected  one  County  Auditor,  who  should  be  ex  officio 
superintendent  of  Public  Schools. 

Mr.  Hooten  approved  of  the  county  auditor;  but  he 
thought  that  it  was  best  to  leave  the  appointment  of  county 
superintendent  of  schools  to  the  Legislature. 

Mr.  Lucas's  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  McCror)'^  moved  to  limit  the  Sheriff's  office  to  two 
years  in  four — lost. 

Mr.  Ferguson  moved  to  reconsider  the  vote  by  which  the 
Convention  refused  to  strike  out  altogether  the  limitation  on 
the  office  of  Sheriff. 

Mr.  Bailey  said  he  thought  the  Convention  had  not  con- 
sidered this  matter  sufficiently.  The  restrictions  on  the 
Sheriff  was  inconsistent  with  the  professions  of  the  gentle- 
men, that  the  people  were  capable  of  self-government. 
They  had  said  that  the  people  could  elect  their  judges,  and 
everything  else;  but  they  would  be  so  far  bamboozled  by  a 
Sheriff  in  four  years  that  they  could  not  decide  upon  his 
merits.  This  he  thought  was  not  right.  The  people  could 
tell  whether  they  were  well  served  by  a  Sheriff,  and  if  they 
were,  they  should  be  left  alone  to  re-elect  him  at  their 
pleasure.  The  office  was  something  like  that  of  Clerk  of 
the  Court;  it  must  take  some  time  for  a  man  to  get  the  run 
of  it  so  as  to  do  the  duties  well.  If  the  Sheriff  proved  a 
defrauder,  then  there  was  a  provision  for  keeping  him  out. 

Mr.  Kirkpatrick  said  that  it  was  just  as  much  a  violation 
of  the  elective  franchise  to  refuse  the  people  the  election  of 
a  man  they  desire  to  elect  as  it  was  to  refuse  them  to  elect  at 
all.     He  should  call  the  yeas  and  nays.     He  wanted  to  see 


Fragments  from  the  Iowa  Standard,  153 

those  gentlemen  who  in  other  instances  had  treated  us  with 
such  high-sounding  words  about  self-government,  come  up 
to  the  mark  in  this  case. 

Mr.  Hooten  said  he  had  no  want  of  confidence  in  the 
capacity  of  the  people,  but  he  thought  that  the  patronage 
and  influence  of  the  Sheriff  might  become  such  as  to  inter- 
fere with  the  freedom  of  elections. 

Mr.  McKean  said  the  principle  of  removing  all  restric- 
tions would  hold  good  if  elections  were  by  a  majority;  but 
we  had  adopted  the  plurality  principle,  and  a  minority  might 
elect  a  man  and  keep  him  in  office.  He  was  in  favor  of  a 
qualification  for  all  officers.  Extend  the  elective  franchise 
as  far  as  possible,  but  require  a  qualification  for  the  officers. 

The  question  being  taken  on  the  motion  to  reconsider,  it 
was  lost — yeas  25,  nays  40. 

Mr.  Lucas  proposed  to  amend  the  3d  section,  so  that  two 
Justices  of  the  Peace  should  be  elected  in  each  township, 
whose  jurisdiction  should  extend  to  cases  of  $100,  and  by 
consent  of  parties,  to  $500. 

Mr.  Quinton  proposed  $200  instead  of  $500 — lost. 

Mr.  Langworthy  opposed  the  proposition  of  Mr.  Lucas. 
He  thought  it  would  be  better  for  some  gentlemen  to  move 
to  insert  the  statute  of  some  particular  State  at  once,  and 
that  would  save  the  trouble  of  any  legislation  hereafter. 
If  we  went  on  after  this  fashion,  crowding  everything  into 
the  Constitution,  there  would  be  no  newspaper  in  the  State 
large  enough  to  contain  it. 

Mr.  Lucas  said  it  was  unfortunate  that  his  amendment 
should  give  dissatisfaction  to  any  gentlemen.  He  believed 
that  it  was  almost  the  first  or  second  that  he  had  offered  to 
anything.  But  he  should  not  be  deterred  from  performing 
what  he  considered  his  duty.  Justices  of  the  Peace  were 
more  important  than  almost  any  other  officer  provided  for 
in  the  Constitution.  The  people  were  more  immediately 
interested  in  the  Justices  of  the  Peace  than  any  other  officer. 


1 54  Convention  of  184.^. 

Giving  them  jurisdiction  up  to  $500,  where  the  parties  con- 
sented, would  contribute  to  lessen  the  number  of  suits 
crowded  into  court  and  diminish  the  cost  to  the  people. 

The  question  being  taken,  Mr.  L.'s  amendment  was 
agreed  to. — Yeas  49,  nays  18. 

An  effort  was  made  to  take  from  the  table  the  Report  of 
the  committee  on  Internal  Improvements,  (forbidding  them, 
unless  the  money  was  present  in  the  Treasury,)  but  only 
eighteen  voted  in  its  favor. 

Mr.  Kirkpatrick  offered  a  resolution  for  a  committee  to 
ascertain  the  expenses  of  the  Convention. 

Mr.  Hepner  did  not  wish  to  include  in  the  inquiry  the 
■per  diem  of  the  members,  but  leave  that  to  be  fixed  by  a 
future  Legislature,  or  by  Congress.  Mr.  H.  moved  to  so 
amend  the  resolution;  but  it  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  resolution  was  then  adopted,  and  Messrs.  Kirkpat- 
rick, Hepner  and  Hawkins  appointed. 

Mr.  Galbraith  moved  to  instruct  the  Committee  to  inquire 
and  report  to  the  Convention  the  cost  of  printing  in  pam- 
phlet form number  of  copies  of  the  Constitution,  for 

distribution  through  the  Territory. 

Mr^  Hooten  moved  to  fill  the  blank  with  3,000. 

Mr.  Wyckoff  opposed  the  resolution.  The  Constitution 
was  to  be  published  in  all  the  papers  in  the  Territory,  until 
next  April,  and  he  conceived  that  printing  it  in  pamphlet 
form  was  unnecessary. 

Mr.  Galbraith  said,  if  it  was  not  printed  in  pamphlet,  for 
general  distribution,  he  was  convinced  that  not  one-half  of 
the  people  would  ever  see  the  Constitution.  In  the  new 
counties,  particularly,  but  very  few  papers  were  taken. 

Mr.  Gower  proposed  to  fill  the  blank  in  the  resolution 
with  5>CKK)'  This,  together  with  Mr.  Hooten's  motion,  was 
disagreed  to;  and  after  some  further  conversation,  the  reso- 
lution was  adopted,  as  originally  proposed. 

Convention  adjourned. 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  155 

Afternoon  Session. 

In  the  morning,  the  Convention  had  taken  up  the  Report 
of  the  Committee  of  Revision,  and  agreed  to  all  the  recom- 
mendations of  the  Committee,  except  that  to  strike  from 
the  Article  on  the  Legislative  Department;  the  section 
making  it  obligatory  upon  the  Legislature  to  pass  laws  to 
exclude  from  the  State  blacks  and  mulattoes.  This  recom- 
mendation, Mr.  Langworthy  moved  that  the  Convention 
disagree  to.  Pending  Mr.  L.'s  motion,  the  subject  was  laid 
aside  for  other  business,  and  now  came  up  regularly  again. 

Mr.  Langworthy  said,  if  there  was  anything  that  his  con- 
stituents instructed  him  upon,  it  was  to  get  something  put 
into  the  Constitution  by  which  negroes  might  be  excluded 
from  the  State.  They  said — Slave,  or  no  negro.  He  was 
not  afraid  but  what  we  would  get  into  the  Union  with  that 
provision  in  the  Constitution;  but  if  other  gentlemen  were 
afraid,  they  could  modify  it  a  little  and  it  would  be  all  right. 
We  were  upon  the  borders  of  a  slave  state,  and  if  we  had 
not  something  to  keep  them  out,  we  should  have  all  the 
broken-down  negroes  of  Missouri  overrunning  us. 

Mr.  Lucas  said  he  had  reflected  upon  this  matter  calmly 
and  seriously,  and  he  had  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
section  proposed  to  be  stricken  out  was  in  direct  contra- 
vention of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  The 
States  regulated  the  rights  of  citizenship,  each  for  itself, 
and  the  Federal  Constitution  guaranteed  to  the  citizens  of 
each  State  the  rights  of  citizens  of  the  several  States.  If 
evil  should  arise  by  emigration  of  blacks,  as  had  been 
anticipated,  the  Legislature  could  make  the  necessary  pro- 
vision against  it.  This  Convention  should  say  nothing 
about  it. 

Mr.  Bailey  thought  it  was  necessary  to  have  something 
settled  about  it;  the  people  of  Iowa  did  not  want  negroes 
swarming  among  them. 


156  Convention  of  18^4. 

Mr.  Grant  said  he  voted  for  inserting  the  section,  when 
it  was  originally  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Dubuque, 
and  he  would  state  why,  as  one  of  the  Committee  of  Revi- 
sion, he  now  recommended  to  strike  it  out.  The  gentleman 
from  Johnson  had  put  into  his  hands  the  debates  on  the 
admission  of  Missouri  into  the  Union,  which  he  had  read 
with  care; — ^he  had  also  read  Story's  opinion  of  the  section 
in  the  Federal  Constitution,  that  was  referred  to;  and  he 
had  become  convinced  that  we  had  no  right  to  put  such  a 
clause  in  our  Constitution.  He  had  come  to  this  conclusion 
with  a  great  deal  of  reluctance,  for  he  was  as  anxious  as 
anyone  to  keep  negroes  out  of  the  State.  He  agreed  that 
the  spirit  was  abroad  to  keep  out  negroes,  and  the  Legis- 
lature would  undoubtedly  take  measures  to  that  effect;  but 
he  had  no  doubt  that  if  we  went  to  Congress  with  that 
clause  in  our  Constitution,  it  would  endanger  our  admission 
into  the  Union. 

Mr.  Langworthy  moved  to  amend  the  section,  by  insert- 
ing after  the  words  "  black  and  mulattoes,"  the  words  "  not 
citizens  of  other  States,"  which  was  agreed  to. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  striking  out  the  section 
altogether,  and  it  was  carried. — Yeas  35,  nays  32. 

The  Convention  now  took  up  the  various  Reports  of  a 
Constitution  on  their  third  reading.  The  following  were 
read  a  third  time  and  passed:  On  State  Boundaries — On 
Suffrage  and  Citizenship — On  the  Judiciary  (yeas  56,  nays 
12) — On  the  Militia — On  Education  and  School  Lands — 
On  Amendments  to  the  Constitution — On  the  Schedule. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Hepner,  the  Report  on  State  Debts 
was  amended,  by  striking  out  35  years  as  the  time  during 
which  a  debt  might  run,  before  being  finally  liquidated,  and 
inserting  20  years.  The  Report  was  then  read  the  third 
time  and  passed. — Yeas  57,  nays  12. 

On  motion,  Messrs.  Hawkins,  Lucas,  Taylor  and  Chap- 
man were  appointed  a  Committee  to  compare  the  Enrolled 
Constitution  with  the  Engrossed  Reports. 


Fragments  from  the  Iowa  Standard.  157 

Mr.  Chapman  proposed  the  following,  to  be  inserted  in 
the  Constitution: 

"This  State  shall  from  time  to  time  be  divided  by  the 
Legislature  into  such  number  of  Congressional  districts  as 
shall  correspond  with  the  number  of  members  of  the  House 
of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  to  which  the  State 
may  from  time  to  time  be  entitled." 

Without  any  action  on  the  above,  the  Convention  ad- 
journed. 


Wednesday,  Oct.   30,  1844. 

On  motion,  Messrs.  Lucas,  Lowe  of  Des  Moines,  and 
Chapman  were  appointed  a  committee  to  draft  an  Ordi- 
nance ( in  reference  to  grants  of  land,  &c.)  to  be  submitted 
to  Congress,  with  the  Constitution. 

Mr.  Shelleday  offered  a  resolution,  for  the  appointment 
of  a  Committee  to  inquire  into  the  probable  cost,  &c.  of 
printing  the  journal  of  the  Convention. 

Some  little  opposition  was  expressed  to  the  above,  upon 
the  ground  that  the  money  could  be  better  expended  in 
printing  the  Constitution  for  circulation.  Others  hoped 
there  was  no  disposition  to  suppress  the  journal. 

The  resolution  was  adopted,  and  Messrs.  Shelleday, 
Langworthy  and  Bissell  appointed. 

Mr.  Kirkpatrick,  from  Committee,  reported  that  in  the 
event  of  the  Constitution  not  exceeding  16  pages,  in  pam- 
phlet, 5000  copies  could  be  had  for  not  more  than  $100. 

Mr.  Galbraith  proposed  the  printing  of  15,000 — Mr. 
Thompson,  of  12,000;  which  latter  number  the  Convention 
ordered  to  be  printed. 

Mr.  Lowe  of  Des  Moines,  from  the  Committee  on  the 
Schedule,  reported  an  Address  to  Congress,  to  accompany 


158  Convention  of  18^4.. 

the  Constitution;  which  was  read  twice,  and  ordered  to  its 
third  reading. 

The  Convention  took  up  the  proposition  submitted  by 
Mr.  Chapman,  on  yesterday,  relative  to  districting  the  State 
for  members  of  Congress. 

Mr.  Hepner  wanted  to  know  the  object  of  the  proposi- 
tion— where  it  was  to  be  put.  Was  it  to  go  in  the  Constitu- 
tion, or  not?   It  seemed  to  be  a  kind  of  young  mandamus  act. 

Mr.  Chapman  said  the  proposition  had  no  affinity  with 
the  mandamus  act.  It  presented  a  question  that  ought  to 
be  settled  here — it  ought  to  be  settled  in  the  constitution. 
The  proposition  was  misrepresented  out  of  doors,  and  here 
it  was  styled  a  mandamus,  with  a  view  of  making  it  odious. 
He  was  aware  that  the  decision  would  be  against  it;  but 
that  would  not  deter  him  from  supporting  the  principle.  It 
had  been  settled  nearly  everywhere  in  the  United  States 
that  Representatives  to  Congress  should  be  elected  by 
single  districts;  reason  approved  of  that  method,  and  he 
desired  to  see  it  adopted  here.  The  State  was  districted 
and  apportioned  for  members  of  the  Legislature,  and  there 
was  equal  reason  why  it  should  be  done  for  Congress. 
Local  considerations  were  felt,  and  local  wants  were  to  be 
attended  to,  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other.  The  people 
would  undoubtedly  wish,  when  the  State  was  entitled  to 
more  than  one  representative  in  Congress,  to  make  the 
choice  by  separate  districts.  When  a  portion  or  section  of 
the  State  was  sufficiently  numerous  to  entitle  them  to  a 
Representative,  they  should  have  the  selection  of  the  per- 
son, so  that  they  might  take  him  who  would  best  suit  them. 

Mr.  Hooten  said,  he  at  first  felt  favorable  to  the  proposi- 
tion; but  on  reflection  he  had  come  to  a  different  opinion. 
In  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  where  he  was  born  and 
raised,  he  had  seen  the  process  of  gerrymandering  carried 
on,  and  the  State  cut  up  into  strips  and  disjointed  parcels,  for 
political  purposes,  and  he  believed  the  other  was  the  best. 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  159 

Mr.  McKean  said  he  was  favorable  to  the  principle  of 
electing  by  Districts — it  was  the  most  just  and  satisfactory 
method;  but  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  had  given 
the  regulation  of  the  subject  to  the  State  Legislatures,  and 
anything  in  the  Constitution  of  the  State  would  not  be 
binding. 

Mr.  Grant  moved  that  the  proposition  be  indefinitely 
postponed,  which  motion  prevailed — Yeas  43,  nays  23. 

The  Convention  took  up  Mr.  Lucas's  resolution,  to  make 
additions  to  the  Bill  of  Rights.  The  proposition  embraced 
seven  sections — ist.  That  laws  should  never  be  suspended, 
unless  by  legislative  authority.  2d.  No  person  to  be  trans- 
ported out  of  the  State  for  an  offence  committed  within  it. 
3d.  No  person  to  be  imprisoned  except  for  offences  against 
the  penal  laws.  4th.  Capital  punishment  never  to  be  exe- 
cuted in  public,  and  to  be  abolished  at  the  discretion  of  the 
General  Assembly.  5th.  No  hereditary  honors,  &c.,  to 
be  granted,  nor  law  passed  granting  exclusive  privileges. 
6th.  Foreign  corporations  not  to  hold  land  within  the  State, 
except  by  permission  of  the  General  Assembly.  7th. 
Every  person  residing  in  the  State  to  have  the  right  to 
hold  80  acres  of  land,  with  the  improvements,  or  a  house 
and  lot  in  town,  free  from  execution. 

Mr.  Lucas  said  this  was  probably  the  last  proposition 
that  he  should  ever  present  to  a  deliberative  body — he  had 
presented  it  through  a  conscientious  sense  of  duty; — many 
of  the  propositions  he  deemed  to  be  very  important,  and 
such  as  ought  to  be  incorporated  in  the  Bill  of  Rights. 
Mr.  L.  now  took  up  the  sections  in  their  order,  and  gave 
the  reasons  in  their  support.  In  relation  to  the  last,  Mr.  L. 
said  he  deemed  that  the  most  important  of  all;  it  was  to 
secure  to  the  poor  man  a  little  spot  of  ground  where  he 
could  build  him  a  cottage  and  have  a  home  for  himself  and 
family,  free  from  the  fear  of  being  turned  out  of  doors. 
Put  this  provision  in  the  Constitution,  and  it  would  add  in- 


i6o  Convention  of  18^4.. 

calculably  to  the  growth  and  settlement  of  the  State.  This 
Constitution  would  go  abroad  to  the  world,  and  the  poor 
man  would  thank  his  God  that  there  was  one  place  where 
he  could  get  him  a  spot  of  land  and  build  him  a  cottage 
without  dread  of  its  being  torn  from  him. 

Mr.  Chapman  urged  the  propriety  of  adopting  the  3d 
section  of  the  proposition,  as  in  his  opinion  there  was  reason 
to  believe  that  the  section  already  in  the  Bill  of  Rights 
would  not  reach  to  every  case  in  which  persons  might  be 
imprisoned  for  other  than  offences  against  the  penal  laws. 
Cases  sounding  in  fraud,  but  where  no  fraud  had  ever  been 
committed,  might  lead  to  imprisonment. 

Mr.  Grant  said,  if  this  was  the  gentleman  from  Johnson's 
last  political  legacy,  he,  for  one,  refused  to  receive  it.  It 
contained  more  folly  and  absurdity  than  was  embraced  in 
any  other  proposition  submitted  to  the  Convention.  Every 
one  of  the  sections  was  either  already  provided  for  in  the 
Bill  of  Rights  as  it  stood,  or  was  unjust  and  improper  in 
itself.  He  congratulated  the  gentleman  upon  his  prospect 
of  retiracy,  and  freedom  from  political  agitations,  but  he 
should  utterly  reject  his  last  will  and  testament.  Mr.  G. 
then  took  up  and  commented  upon  the  sections  in  detail,  as 
had  been  done  by  Mr.  Lucas,  giving  reasons  why  they 
were  not  called  for,  or  should  not  be  adopted.  The  last 
he  considered  the  most  obnoxious  of  all.  Instead  of  pro- 
tecting the  poor,  it  was  directly  calculated  to  foster  a  landed 
aristocracy.  There  was  no  estimating  the  amount  of 
improvements  that  might  be  put  upon  80  acres  of  land. 
He  would  very  candidly  tell  the  Convention  that  he  had  an 
80 upon  which  was  near  $10,000  of  improvements;  he  might 
make  it  worth  a  million.  This  tieing  up  a  man's  property 
from  his  creditors  was  objectionable  in  every  point  of  view, 
and  could  benefit  nobody,  unless  it  was  a  man  who  wished 
to  be  dishonest.  It  was  returning  towards  the  European 
system  of  entailments,  (which  system  we  had  once  freed 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  i6i 

ourselves  from,}  where  enormous  estates  of  thousands  of 
acres  were  tied  up  from  the  reach  of  law.  If  80  acres  were 
secured  now,  next  it  might  be  160,  then  320,  and  then  a 
whole  section.  The  land  might  next  be  entailed  to  the 
children,  and  so  on. 

After  a  motion  by  Mr.  Hempstead  to  strike  out  the  3d 
section  of  Mr.  Lucas's  proposition,  as  being  provided  for  by 
the  1 8th  section  of  the  Bill  of  Rights,  the  Convention  ad- 
journed. 

Afternoon  Session. 

The  question  was  taken  upon  the  motion  of  Mr.  Hemp- 
stead, made  before  the  adjournment  in  the  morning,  and  it 
was  carried. 

Mr.  Davidson  moved  that  the  entire  sections  be  indefi- 
nitely postponed. 

Mr.  Williams  moved  to  amend  the  7th  section  so  that  the 
land  or  lot  to  be  exempted  should  not  exceed  in  value  $300. 

Mr.  Felkner  proposed  a  substitute  for  Mr.  Williams 
amendment,  by  striking  out  all  relating  to  exemption  of 
land  and  lots,  and  inserting  an  exemption  of  $100  worth  of 
property,  to  be  selected  by  the  individual. 

Mr.  Felkner's  motion,  and  also  that  of  Mr.  Williams, 
failed. 

Mr.  Felkner  moved  to  so  amend  the  4th  section  as  to 
make  it  read,  "Capital  punishment  shall  never  be  executed 
in  this  State."     Lost — -Yeas  19,  nays  49. 

The  question  was  now  taken  on  Mr.  Davidson's  motion 
to  indefinitely  postpone  the  whole  subject,  and  it  was 
agreed  to — Yeas  40,  nays  30. 

Mr.  Cook  proposed  the  following,  to  be  added  to  the 
Bill  of  Rights: 

"That  no  law   ought  to  be    passed,   which    will   bring 
convict  labor  into  competition  with  the  free  labor  of  the 
mechanics  of  this  State," 
II 


1 62  Convention  of  1844. 

Mr.  C.  moved  thai  the  rule  be  suspended,  so  as  to  per- 
mit the  proposed  article  to  be  put  upon  its  3d  reading  and 
passage  immediately;  but  the  Convention  refused — Yeas 
22,  nays  45 — which  was  equivalent  to  rejecting  the  propo- 
sition. 

Mr.  Peck  moved  that  the  Bill  of  Rights  be  taken  from 
the  table,  and  the  6th  section  ( concerning  libel,)  be  altered 
so  as  to  read,  that  in  prosecutions  for  libel  the  truth  of  the 
matter  charged  might  be  given  in  evidence,  and  should  it 
appear  to  the  jury  to  have  been  published  with  good 
motives  and  for  justifiable  ends,  the  accused  to  be  acquit- 
ted; which  motion  was  agreed  to,  and  the  alteration  made 
—yeas  34,  nays  32. 

Mr.  Grant,  from  the  Revision  Committee,  reported  in 
favor  of  striking  out  the  first  section  [printed  as  sec.  2  in 
the  proceedings  of  Monday,]  of  the  Report  on  Corpora- 
tions; also  in  favor  inserting  a  section  to  except  public  cor- 
porations from  the  action  of  the  provisions;  both  of  which 
was  agreed  to. 

The  Report  on  the  Bill  of  Rights,  Report  on  the  Legis- 
lative Department,  and  Report  on  the  Executive  Depart- 
ment, were  each  read  a  third  time  and  passed. 

Mr.  Lucas,  from  Committee,  reported  to  the  Convention 
a  draft  for  an  Ordinance. 

Mr.  Peck  moved  to  amend  the  draft,  by  adding  to  the 
requests  one  for  a  township  of  land  to  complete  the  Peni- 
tentiary; Mr.  Thompson  to  add,  for  a  quarter  section  in 
each  township,  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  township 
libraries; — each  of  which  were  agreed  to,  and  the  draft 
ordered  to  be  engrossed  for  a  third  reading. 

Convention  adjourned. 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  163 

Thursday,  Oct.  31,  1844. 

Mr.  Kirkpatrick  offered  the  following: 

"Resolved,  That  the  Delegates  in  this  Convention  have 
each  $3  per  day  for  their  attendance,  and  $3  for  every  20 
miles  travel  in  coming  to  and  returning  from  this  place; 
that  the  Secretary  be  paid  $5  per  day,  the  Assistant  Secre- 
tary $4  per  day,  and  the  Sergeant-at-Arms  and  Door- 
Keeper  each  $3  per  day." 

Mr.  Wyckoff  moved  to  allow  the  Assistant  Secretary  $5 
per  day.     Lost. 

Mr.  Lowe,  of  Des  Moines,  said  he  was  opposed  to  pass- 
ing the  resolution  in  its  present  shape.  We  had  nothing 
with  which  to  pay  ourselves,  if  we  passed  the  resolution. 
Besides,  we  had  fixed  the  pay  of  members  of  the  State 
Legislature  at  $2,  and  our  services  ought  not  to  be  worth 
more  than  theirs.  He  had  rather  the  pay  of  the  Delegates 
should  be  left  for  a  future  Legislature  to  fix.  Perphaps  it 
would  be  well  to  fix  the  pay  of  the  officers. 

Mr.  Lucas  said,  he  thought  we  might  as  well  fix  the  pay 
of  the  Delegates,  as  to  leave  it  to  a  future  Legislature.  The 
law  creating  the  Convention  authorized  us  to  fix  our  own 
pay,  and  we  should  have  no  false  delicacy  about  doing  it. 
We  had  come  here  and  spent  our  time,  and  worked  faith- 
fully to  serve  our  constituents,  and  he  thought  we  had 
earned  $3  per  day.  Past  Legislatures  had  received  $3  per 
day,  and  the  people  expected  that  members  of  the  Conven- 
tion would  be  paid  the  same. 

Mr.  Kirkpatrick  said,  if  $3  per  day  was  too  big  a  dose 
for  any  gentleman,  he  was  not  obliged  to  take  it.  He  could 
take  as  much  as  his  stomach  would  bear,  and  leave  the 
rest. 

Mr.  Cook  said,  he  thought  we  were  the  people  them- 
selves, and  that  we  were  not  bound  by  any  act  of  the  Legis- 
lature in  fixing  our  pay,  or  anything  else.     We  had  fixed 


164  Convention  of  184.4.. 

the  pay  of  members  of  the  Legislature  at  $2  per  day,  and 
he  did  not  see  with  what  kind  of  face  we  could  vote  to  give 
ourselves  $3. 

Mr.  C.  moved  to  strike  out  of  the  resolution  all  relating 
to  the  per  diem  and  mileage  of  Delegates. 

Mr.  Hepner  said,  the  Convention  had  appointed  a  Com- 
mittee to  ascertain  the  expenses  of  the  session,  but  the 
Committee  could  not  perform  its  duty  without  some  such 
proceeding  as  this  resolution,  to  ascertain  what  was  to  be 
allowed  to  members  for  their  per  diem  and  mileage,  and 
how  much  to  the  officers.  It  was  thought,  also,  by  some 
of  the  members,  that  if  they  had  certificates  of  what  would 
be  due  to  them,  signed  by  the  President  and  countersigned 
by  the  Secretary,  they  could  make  use  of  them  for  present 
convenience — could  perhaps  pay  their  board  with  them, 
&c.  If  we  were  going  to  get  cash  in  hand,  the  position  of 
the  gentleman  from  Scott  (Mr.  Cook,)  would  be  correct, 
and  it  would  not  be  proper  to  pay  ourselves  more  than  we 
had  fixed  for  the  pay  of  members  of  the  State  Legislature. 
But  there  was  no  telling  when  we  were  to  get  our  pay; 
perhaps  we  would  lay  out  of  it  10  years.  He  was  first  of 
the  opinion  of  his  colleague,  (Mr.  Lowe,)  not  to  say  any- 
thing about  the  pay  of  members;  but  he  since  formed  a 
contrary  opinion,  and  he  now  thought  it  was  best  to  settle 
the  matter  here. 

Mr.  Quinton  expressed  views  similar  to  those  of  Mr. 
Hepner. 

The  question  was  taken  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Cook,  and 
lost. 

Mr.  Cook  now  moved  to  strike  out  $3,  and  insert  $2. 
He  was  opposed  to  legislating  money  into  his  own  pocket. 
It  was  said  there  was  no  knowing  when  we  were  to  get 
our  pay — so  there  was  no  knowing  when  the  members  of 
the  first  State  Legislature  would  get  their  pay.  There 
would  be  no  money  in  the  Treasury,  and  they  would  have 


Pragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  165 

first  to  pass  a  Revenue  law,  and  then  wait  till  the  money 
was  collected.  Should  Congress  divert  the  legislative 
appropriation,  as  had  been  asked  for,  they  would  probably 
allow  to  the  members  of  the  Convention  the  same  that  past 
Legislatures  had  had;  but  if  the  pay  was  to  come  out  of 
the  State  Treasury,  he  was  opposed  to  fixing  it  at  $3. 

Mr.  Hooten  said  he  could  not  see  the  difference  between 
taking  $3  a  day  from  the  United  States,  or  from  the  State. 
He  thought  the  paper  certificates  would  be  worth  little  or 
nothing,  and  he  should  not  scruple  to  take  the  $3  a  day 
from  either  source,  when  it  came. 

Mr.  Kirkpatrick  said  he  was  going  for  the  $3  a  day  in 
order  to  make  a  little  political  capital.  Taking  the  trouble 
and  making  the  sacrifices  necessary  to  come  here,  and  get- 
ting pay  for  but  about  20  days,  $3  was  none  too  much; 
and  if  his  constituents  were  not  satisfied,  he  did  not  want 
them  to  send  him  any  where  again,  for  he  did  not  want 
to  go  for  less  than  $3. 

Mr.  Lowe,  of  Muscatine,  called  for  the  yeas  and  nays, 
in  order,  he  said,  to  let  the  gentleman  from  Jackson  make 
his  political  capital. 

Messrs.  Chapman  and  Bailey  each  supported  fixing  the 
pay  at  $3  per  day. 

The  question  was  now  taken  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Cook. 

Mr.  Clarke  asked  to  be  excused  from  voting. — Granted. 

The  motion  was  lost — Yeas  24,  nays  41. 

Mr.  Peck  proposed  a  substitute  for  the  resolution — that 
the  President  and  Secretary  give  to  the  members  certifi- 
cates of  the  number  of  day's  attendance  and  mile's  travel. 
Lost — Yeas  15,  nays  54. 

Mr.  Campbell,  of  Scott,  moved  to  amend  the  resolution 
so  that  the  Secretary  and  Assistant  should  have  each 
$3.50  per  day. 

Mr.  Hempstead  opposed  the  motion  to  amend.  He  said 
if  ever  men  had  earned  what  was  proposed  to  be  given 


1 66  Convention  of  1844.. 

them,  the  Clerks  had.  They  had  been  forced  to  work 
night  and  day  in  order  to  keep  up  with  their  duties.  He 
thought,  also,  that  the  members  had  well  earned  $3. 

Messrs.  Kirkpatrick  and  Lucas  opposed  the  motion  of 
Mr.  Campbell. 

The  question  was  taken  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Campbell, 
and  it  w^as  lost — Yeas  8,  nays  58. 

The  question  being  on  the  adoption  of  the  resolution,  a 
division  was  called  for,  and  a  vote  taken  on  the  pay  of 
members  and  the  pay  of  officers  separately.  For  the  first 
branch  of  the  resolution,  yeas  39,  nays  39 — carried.  Second 
branch,  yeas  61,  nays  5 — carried. 

The  Report  on  Incorporations  was  now  taken  up  on  its 
3d  reading  and  passage. 

Mr.  Cook  moved  that  the  Report  be  referred  to  a  select 
committee,  with  instructions  to  so  amend  the  6th  section, 
as  to  limit  the  Legislature's  power  of  repeal  to  charters  by 
which  banking  privileges  were  granted. 

After  some  little  remark,  the  question  was  taken  on  Mr. 
C's  motion,  and  it  was  lost — Yeas  24,  nays  41. 

Mr.  Hobson  moved  that  the  Report  be  indefinitely  post- 
poned, which  was  decided  in  the  negative,  as  follows: 

Yeas — Messrs.  Blankenship,  Brookbank,  Campbell  of 
Washington,  Chapman,  Cook,  Delashmutt,  Fletcher,  Hoag, 
Hobson,  Kerr,  Lowe  of  Muscatine,  Lucas,  McCrory,  Mc- 
Kean,  Randolph,  Ross  of  Washington,  Sells,  Shelleday, 
Strong,  Toole,  Williams — 21. 

Nays — Messrs.  Bailey,  Benedict,  Bissell,  Bratton,  Brown, 
Butler,  Campbell  of  Scott,  Charleton,  Clarke,  Crawford, 
Cutler,  Davidson,  Durham,  Evans,  Felkner,  Ferguson,  Gal- 
braith,  Galland,  Grant,  Hale,  Harrison,  Hempstead,  Hep- 
ner,  Hooten,  Kirkpatrick,  Langworthy,  Lowe  of  Des 
Moines,  Marsh,  Morden,  McAtee,  Murray,  O'Brien,  Olm- 
stead.  Peck,  Quinton,  Ripley,  Robinson,  Ross  of  Jefferson, 
Salmon,  Staley,  Thompson,  Whitmore,  Wright,  Wyckoff, 
and  President — 44. 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  167 

Mr.  Shelleday  said  he  had  not  troubled  the  Convention 
much  upon  the  subject  of  this  Report,  but  he  must  now  say 
that  he  was  conscentiously  of  opinion  that  it  was  calculated 
to  be  destructive  of  the  best  interests  of  the  State.  He  was 
unqualifiedly  opposed  to  the  principles  of  the  Report,  ex- 
cepting upon  the  subject  of  Banks.  He  presumed  there 
would  be  no  compromise;  but  if  the  Report  was  to  pass  in 
this  way,  it  would  secure  his  feeble  opposition  to  the  Con- 
stitution. He  came  here  to  compromise,  and  in  that  way 
to  make  a  Constitution  that  he  could  vote  for.  He  knew 
it  was  said  that  the  Whigs  came  here  determined  to  go 
against  the  Constitution,  and  to  make  it  odious,  so  that  it 
would  be  defeated.  He,  for  one,  would  say  that  it  was  not 
so — he  cleared  his  skirts  of  any  such  intention.  He  asked 
gentlemen  of  the  other  party  to  consider  this  matter  seri- 
ously; the  20  Whigs  in  the  Convention  represented  a  large 
proportion  of  the  people  of  this  Territory;  The  Democratic 
majority  was  not  so  very  large,  and  this  measure  might 
cause  the  defeat  of  the  Constitution.  He  knew  many 
Democrats  who  would  vote  against  the  Constitution  on  the 
same  principles  as  himself.  He  came  to  this  county 
because  he  thought  it  would  be  a  great  manufacturing 
country,  but  this  Report  would  prevent  almost  any  enter- 
prise of  that  description. 

The  question  was  now  taken  on  the  final  passage  of  the 
Report,  and  it  was  passed — Yeas  45,  nays  22. 

The  Report  on  County  Organization — the  Ordinance — 
and  the  Memorial  to  Congress — were  each  read  a  third 
time  and  passed. 

Mr.  Shelleday,  from  Committee,  reported  a  recommen- 
dation for  the  printing  of  480  copies  of  the  Journal  of  the 
Convention. 

Mr.  Clarke  proposed  a  substitute  for  the  report  of  the 
Committee,  providing  that  the  Journal  should  be  printed  if 
it  could  be  paid  for  out  of  the  fund  appropriated  by  Con- 
gress for  the  Legislature. 


i68  Convention  of  1844.. 

Mr.  C.  entertained  little  doubt  but  what  Congress  would 
divert  the  appropriation  to  paying  the  expenses  of  the  Con- 
vention. 

The  substitute  was  supported  by  Mr.  Peck,  and  earnestly 
opposed  by  Messrs.  Langworthy,  Lucas,  Cook  and  Bailey, 
who  all  claimed  the  certain  printing  of  the  Journal  as  abso- 
lutely necessary  to  a  full  information  of  the  public,  and  also 
to  place  individual  members  of  the  Convention  in  a  correct 
light  before  their  constituents. 

Mr.  Clarke  withdrew  his  substitute,  and  the  recommen- 
dation to  print  480  copies  of  the  Journal  was  agreed  to 
without  further  opposition. 

The  Convention  adjourned. 

Afternoon  Session. 

Mr.  Peck  in  the  Chair. 

Mr.  Harrison  offered  a  resolution  that  the  President  of 
the  Convention  be  allowed  $3  per  day  extra  pay,  which 
was  adopted. 

Mr.  Hawkins,  from  the  Committee  on  Enrollments, 
reported  the  whole  Constitution  to  the  Convention,  as  cor- 
rectly enrolled,  and  asked  the  attestation  of  the  members 
and  Secretary  thereto;  which  was  accordingly  given. 

Mr.  Kirkpatrick,  from  the  Committee   on  Expenditures, 
reported  a  bill  of  items,  for  the  incidental  and  other  ex- 
penditures arising  out  of  the  session,  with  the  exception  of 
the  account  of  the  Secretary  for  stationary. 
The  items  are  as  follows: 

Jesse  Williams,  for  incidental  printing,      $    262  50 
For  fitting  up  the  room  of  the  Convention,        138  20 

Extra  Clerks, 13  50 

Per  diem  of  members,  .         .         .         5,616  00 

Mileage,     "         "  ....     1,746  00 

Extra  pay  to  the  President,         .  .  78  00 


Fragments  from   The  Iowa  Standard.  169 


Secretary  of  the  Convention,  . 

130  00 

Assistant  Secretary,     . 

104  00 

Sergeant  at  Arms,    .         .         .         . 

78  00 

Door  Keeper,      .... 

78  00 

$8,244  20 

Which  report  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Shelleday  offered  a  resolution  that  the  thanks  of  the 
Convention  be  tendered  to  the  President  for  his  able  and 
impartial  conduct  in  the  Chair;  which  was  adopted. 

The  Convention  then  adjourned  till  6  o'clock,  to-morrow 
rooming. 


Friday,  Nov.  i,  1844. 

The  following  resolutions  were  offered  and  adopted, 
namely : 

A  resolution  to  pay  F.  M.  Irish  $6  for  two  days  services 
as  Sergeant-at-Arms  pro  tem. 

A  resolution  to  pay  Jas.  W.  Woods  $10  for  two  days 
services  as  Secretary  pro  tem. 

A  resolution  giving  the  President  and  Secretary  the 
power  to  settle  for  printing  the  Constitution. 

Also,  a  resolution  authorizing  the  Secretary  to  superin- 
tend the  printing  and  distributing  of  the  Journals,  and  giving 
him  for  his  services  $100. 

Mr.  Hawkins  moved  that  the  Convention  adjourn  sine  die. 

The  President  then  addressed  the  Convention  in  a  few 
parting  observations,  congratulating  the  members  upon  the 
work  they  had  accomplished,  and  expressing  his  belief  that 
it  would  receive  the  approval  of  the  people;  which  con- 
cluded, he  declared  the  Convention  adjourned  without  day. 


Fragments  from 
The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter 


PROCEEDINGS 


OF 


THE  CONVENTION  OF  1844. 


Tuesday,  October  8tli,  2  p.  m. 

Mr.  Hall  offered  the  following  resolution : 

Resolved,  That  each  member  of  the  Convention  have  the 
privilege  of  taking  twenty  copies  of  the  newspapers  pub- 
lished in  this  city,  and  that  the  expense  of  the  same  be 
charged  to  the  contingent  expenses  of  this  Convention. 

Mr.  Thompson  moved  to  amend  the  resolution  by  strik- 
ing out  twenty  and  inserting  ten. 

Mr.  Grant  was  opposed  to  the  original  resolution,  and 
would  oppose  it  if  amended.  He  thought  it  was  copying 
from  that  sink  of  pollution,  the  general  Congress — it  was 
useless  and  corrupt.  We  come  here  with  economy  on  our 
lips,  and  he  was  unwilling  to  act  in  favor  of  any  measure 
that  savored  of  useless  expenditure.  This  he  believed  to 
be  one,  and  of  all  others,  the  least  deserving  of  favor.  The 
Legislature  of  this  Territory,  he  said,  had  been  in  the  habit 
of  subscribing  for  a  large  number  of  papers  to  furnish  their 
constituents;  and  for  his  part,  he  believed  it  to  be  an  injury 
to  the  papers  at  the  capital,  inasmuch  as  it  prevented  them 
from  obtaining  a  good  and  permanent  circulation  through- 
out the  Territory.  People  would  not  subscribe  and  pay  for 
newspapers  when  they  could  be  furnished  at  the  most  inter- 


1 74  Convention  of  18^4. 

esting  portion  of  the  year,  gratis.  Mr.  G.  had  no  doubt,  if 
this  resolution  passed  the  Convention,  the  editors  would 
furnish  the  papers,  as  he  had  discovered  upon  their  part,  a 
very  great  disposition  to  accommodate,  but  for  his  part,  he 
thought  it  asking  too  much;  they  would  in  all  probability 
be  kept  out  of  their  claims  for  years.  He  should  vote 
against  the  resolution. 

Mr.  Hemptead  was  in  favor  of  the  original  resolution. 
His  constituents  expected  it,  and  would  not  be  satisfied 
without  it.  It  was  a  proposition  that  was  right.  The 
people  wished  early  information,  and  were  waiting  anxiously 
to  hear  the  proceedings.  He  thought  it  was  pitiful  economy 
that  denied  the  people  means  of  information  upon  a  subject 
that  they  had  sent  us  to  perform  for  themselves,  there  was 
a  special  necessity  for  this  information  at  this  time,  that  the 
constituent  might  be  informed  preparatory  to  his  voting 
for  or  against  the  constitution. 

Mr.  Hawkins  said  that  he  should  oppose  the  resolution. 
He  was  in  favor  of  economy — every  member  of  this  Con- 
vention had  pledged  himself  in  favor  of  economy.  Again, 
the  distribution  of  papers  was  foolish  and  useless — it  done 
no  good.  The  first  number  would  be  sent  to  A,  the  second 
number  to  B;  thus  the  information  would  be  given  out  in 
broken  doses,  and  he  never  heard  of  any  good  from  broken 
doses,  unless  it  produced  salivation. 

The  desires  of  the  people  upon  this  subject,  arose  from 
the  fact  that  they  supposed  the  papers  would  be  paid  for 
as  heretofore,  by  the  general  government.  They  did  not 
know  that  they  would  have  to  be  taxed  to  pay  for  them. 
They  were  ignorant  upon  this  subject.  The  Legislatures 
of  the  Territory  had  expended  thousands  more  than  had 
been  appropriated,  and  the  people  did  not  know  it.  He 
said  that  this  would  be  a  bad  precedent,  and  ought  not  to 
be  sanctioned;  he  would  not  disappoint  his  constituents  with 
his  motives  of  economy. 


Fragments  from  The  loiva  Capital  Reporter.       175 

Mr.  Hall  said  he  was  aware  that  this  resolution  would 
tread  upon  the  feet  of  members  who  were  tenaceous 
of  economy,  who  always  had  it  on  their  lips,  however  it 
might  be  in  the  heart,  yet  he  regretted  that  the  first  victim 
that  it  sacrificed  should  be  a  proposition  to  enlighten  the 
people  upon  the  most  important  and  interesting  subject  that 
had  ever  been  before  them. — It  was  the  same  species  of 
economy  that  prevented  the  miserly  parent  from  purchas- 
ing a  spelling  book  for  his  child,  or  refused  to  patronize  a 
school.  It  was  a  tariff  to  protect  economy  against  intelli- 
gence. The  people  desired  this  and  would  never  complain 
if  they  were  gratified. — His  colleague  had  said  the  people 
were  ignorant  of  the  source  that  was  to  pay  for  these 
papers — he  denied  that  they  were  so — they  knew  as  well  as 
the  gentleman  did,  and  it  was  unkind  in  that  gentleman  to 
accuse  them  of  ignorance. 

[The  motion  was  lost.] 


Thursday  Morning,  Oct.  10. 

Mr.  Chapman  moved  to  take  from  the  table  a  resolution 
offered  on  yesterday  by  Mr.  Sells,  in  reference  to  opening 
the  Convention  with  prayer.  It  was  taken  up.  Yeas  37, 
— Nays  32. 

Mr.  Hall  offered  the  following  amendment: 

Resolved,  That  the  exercises  created  by  this  resolution 
shall  commence  at  least  one  half  hour  before  the  assem- 
bling of  the  Convention  at  its  regular  hour  of  adjournment, 
and  be  concluded  before  the  regular  time  of  the  meet- 
ing of  the  Convention. 

Mr.  Chapman  said  he  thought  that  the  adoption  of  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Henry  would  be  an 
insult  to  the  Clergy,  and  to  that  portion  of  the  Convention 


176  -      Convention  of  1844. 

who  believed  in  the  superintendence  of  a  Supreme  Being. 
He  thought  the  character  which  it  would  give  us  abroad  to 
adopt  this  amendment,  should  influence  us — that  it  would 
have  a  bad  moral  tendency,  and  that  if  the  amendment 
was  adopted  he  should  have  to  vote  against  the  original 
resolution. 

Mr.  Kirkpatrick  wished  to  be  heard — he  voted  to  take 
the  resolution  from  the  table — he  like  the  gentleman  from 
Wapello,  believed  in  a  superintending  Providence,  and 
would  go  farther — that  that  providence  guided  and  con- 
trolled our  actions;  but  he  differed  with  the  gentleman 
from  Wapello;  he  was  a  firm  believer  in  Christianity,  but 
did  not  wish  to  enforce  prayer  upon  the  Convention;  he 
wanted  it  to  rely  on  its  divine  origin  for  the  enforcement  of 
its  tenets;  prayer  would  be  equally  efficacious  if  in  private; 
that  if  gentlemen  wanted  prayer  let  them  pray  in  their 
closets;  he  believed  secret  prayer  would  have  more  influ- 
ence than  the  prayer  of  the  Pharisee;  that  the  resolution 
was  calculated  to  enforce  an  abstract  right,  which  could 
not  be  enforced  without  interfering  with  natural  rights. 

Mr.  Sells  hoped  that  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Henry  would  not  prevail.  He  did  not  intend  to  elicit 
discussion;  it  had  been  customary  to  have  prayer  on  such 
occasions;  he  regretted  that  we  had  so  far  traveled  out  of 
the  Union  and  were  so  lost  to  a  sense  of  moral  duty,  as  to 
deny  our  dependence  on  a  superintending  Providence;  that 
such  a  course  would  cause  vice  and  immorality,  and  pre- 
vent good;  if  the  amendment  prevailed,  he  should  vote 
against  the  resolution. 

Mr.  Lucas  was  astonished  at  the  amendment  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Henry.  Dr.  Franklin  had  made  a  motion  in 
the  Convention  that  formed  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  to  open  the  same  with  prayer — it  had  been  followed 
everywhere  as  a  custom,  and  it  would  give  us  a  bad  name 
abroad  if  we  rejected  this  resolution.     He  said  it  was  due 


Fragments  from  The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter.      177 

to  the  religious  community,  and  to  our  own  character.  He 
believed  in  the  superintending  care  of  Providence,  and 
believed  His  promises  would  be  fulfilled. 

Mr.  Hooten  said  he  was  opposed  to  the  amendment  of 
the  gentleman  from  Henry;  he  had  rather  meet  the  resolu- 
tion on  its  true  merits.  The  gentleman  from  Johnson 
reminded  him  of  an  anecdote  of  Franklin  when  a  boy,  who 
enquired  of  his  father  why  it  would  not  be  better  to  say 
grace  over  the  whole  barrel  of  pork  at  once.  Gentlemen 
opposed  the  resolution  for  furnishing  papers,  on  account  of 
expense;  and  on  grounds  of  economy,  to  be  consistent, 
should  oppose  this.  Our  constituents  counted  more  on 
being  informed  of  what  we  were  doing  than  they  did 
whether  we  were  every  morning  engaged  in  prayers. 

Mr.  Hall  said  he  did  not  offer  the  amendment  out  of  any 
levity  or  disrespect  to  religion.  He  venerated  religion, 
but  he  believed  that  the  amendment  was  right.  If  there 
was  really  good  in  prayer,  the  amendment  gave  ample 
opportunity  to  those  who  chose  to  attend  to  it,  and  would 
not  inflict  upon  those  who  did  not  wish  to  hear  prayer — an 
unnecessary,  and,  as  he  thought,  improper  annoyance. 

Gentlemen  claimed  to  pass  this  resolution  on  the  ground 
that  it  would  add  character  to  the  Convention  at  a  distance; 
not  from  a  supposed  necessity  that  the  members  required 
religious  interference — not  from  an  impression  that  any 
direct  good  would  arise  from  it,  but  it  was  for  dress,  for 
show,  to  delude  the  prejudices  of  sections.  He  was  opposed 
to  any  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  Convention  to  palm  them- 
selves off  to  be  better  than  they  really  were,  and  above  all 
other  things,  to  assume  a  garb  of  religion  for  the  purpose  of 
giving  themselves  character.  He  denounced  the  position  as 
hypocritical,  and  an  imputation  on  religion  itself.  He 
alluded  to  political  meetings,  and  the  solemn  mockery  of 
opening  them  with  an  appeal  to  Heaven,  and  closing  them 
with  a  drunken  row  or  low  debauch.  He  alluded  to  the 
12 


178  Convention  of  18/J.4. 

case  of  the  Rhode  Island  meeting  in  favor  of  Dorr,  and  the 
prayer  upon  the  occasion.  The  Reverend  gentleman  on 
that  occasion  prayed  most  fervently  for  the  release  of  Dorr 
— for  the  election  of  Polk  and  Dallas,  and  the  triumph  of 
Democratic  principles.  He  said  that  he  approved  of  the 
doctrine  of  that  prayer,  yet  its  efficacy  and  the  facts  con- 
nected with  it,  would  imply  that  Deity  was  a  Democrat;  for 
unless  he  was,  no  such  prayer  could  receive  approbation 
from  that  source.  He  thought  religion,  such  as  reigns 
alone  in  the  heart  of  man,  suffered  much  from  all  such 
prostitutions. 

Mr.  Bailey  wished  to  say  a  few  words  in  justification  of 
himself.  He  thought  the  discussion  was  taking  a  religious 
course.  This,  he  stated,  was  always  an  exciting  subject, 
and  when  brought  to  bear  on  matters  of  this  kind,  produc- 
tive of  unpleasant  consequences.  When  this  Convention 
resolved  to  have  its  session  opened  with  prayer,  he  cheer- 
fully acquiesced — but  when  it  was  proposed  to  take  up  the 
time  of  the  people  for  twenty  or  thirty  minutes  each  day, 
he  felt  himself  bound  to  enter  his  objections  to  such  a 
course.  He  said  he  witnessed  those  present  who  on  yes- 
terday had  opposed,  by  their  votes  and  their  speeches,  the 
sending  of  the  newspapers  of  this  city,  to  enlighten  the 
people  on  the  important  transactions  of  this  Convention, 
who  were  now  seeking  to  incur  a  greater  expense  for 
prayer  in  this  hall.  The  Convention,  in  his  opinion,  was 
created  specially  for  the  transaction  of  business — the  busi- 
ness for  which  they  were  sent — and  not  for  religious  pur- 
poses. If  this  resolution  passed,  it  would  in  his  opinion, 
become  the  duty  of  the  sergeant-at-arms  to  bring  members 
to  this  hall  for  the  purpose  of  attending  prayer.  This,  in 
his  opinion,  would  be  abridging  the  individual  rights  of 
members.  If  gentlemen  did  not  choose  to  come  voluntarily, 
it  would  be  wrong  in  his  view,  to  enforce  attendance. 
People  love  liberty,  and  were  daily  becoming  more  and 


Fragments  from  The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter.      1 79 

more  sensitive  upon  this  subject  of  individual  rights  and 
privileges.  He  said  if  members  wished  prayer,  there  were 
prayer  meetings  in  town  almost  every  evening,  and  that 
they  had  the  privilege  of  attending  that  sacred  duty  at  their 
own  pleasure,  without  taking  up  the  time  of  the  people  in 
this  hall.  He  thought  the  precedents  referred  to  by  gen- 
tlemen should  not  be  made  to  apply  on  this  subject.  If  we 
had  always  adhered  to  precedents,  we  should  never  have 
advanced  to  our  present  state  of  glorious  civil  and  religious 
liberty.  We  are  a  progressing  people,  and  were,  he  was 
happy  to  believe,  becoming  more  enlightened  upon  the 
matter  of  individual  rights  daily.  He  regretted  to  see  re- 
ligion brought  to  bear  upon  temporal  and  political  enter- 
prize — which  he  conceived  as  often  as  otherwise,  to  be 
through  the  worst  and  most  selfish  motives.  He  had 
recently  seen  it  stated  in  the  papers,  that  Clay  Clubs  and 
other  political  and  party  carousals,  had,  as  he  believed,  in- 
voked the  aid  of  religion  for  political  and  party  purposes. 
He  did  not  wish  his  remarks  to  apply  to  one  of  the  great 
poHtical  parties  more  than  the  other,  but  merely  to  show 
that,  in  his  opinion,  religion  was  frequently  made  the  cloak 
under  which  demagogues  too  frequently  attempted  to  ele- 
vate themselves  into  political  favor. 

Mr.  Fletcher  said  that  having  himself  made  a  motion  on 
Monday  last,  that  prayer  should  be  offered  at  the  opening 
of  the  Convention,  he  felt  it  his  duty  to  state  the  motives 
which  would  govern  him  on  voting  upon  the  amendment 
under  consideration  and  upon  the  passage  of  the  resolution. 
He  was  opposed  to  the  adoption  of  the  amendment  and  in 
favor  of  the  resolution,  he  could  not  admit  that  the  friends 
of  the  resolution  wished  to  get  up  a  religious  controversy. 
Mr.  F.  said  that  he  regretted  that  the  resolution  had  been 
offered  as  it  had  met  the  disapprobation  of  so  large  a  por- 
tion of  the  Convention ;  but  as  it  had  become  a  matter  of 
record,  if  the  mover  did  not  see  fit  to  withdraw  it  he  would 


i8o  Convention  of  184/f.. 

vote  for  it.  He  was  unwilling  that  it  should  go  forth  to 
the  world  that  Iowa  had  refused  to  acknowledge  a  God,  he 
contended  that  such  would  be  the  light  in  which  the  moral 
sense  of  the  community  would  view  the  rejection  of  the 
resolution.  Mr.  F.  said  he  made  no  pretentions  to  extra 
piety — he  had  no  religion  to  boast  of,  said  that  he  had  faith 
in  the  God  of  his  fathers  and  that  he  held  it  to  be  his  duty 
and  privilege  on  all  proper  occasions  to  acknowledge  his 
allegiance  to  him  and  to  supplicate  the  blessing,  and  he 
deemed  it  not  only  right  but  highly  proper  that  the  people 
of  Iowa  in  Convention  assembled  should  acknowledge  their 
allegiance  to  Almighty  God  and  implore  his  guidance  and 
blessing.  He  held  that  the  influence  of  so  doing  would  be 
salutary  on  the  members  of  the  Convention,  and  beneficial 
in  its  effects  on  the  morals  of  the  community. 

Mr.  Evans  thought  more  time  had  been  occupied  by  this 
debate  than  would  give  us  prayers  for  two  weeks.  He  had 
no  objection  as  to  the  prayer  at  the  Dorr  meeting  referred 
to  by  Mr.  Hall,  he  thought  it  a  good  democratic  prayer. 
He  should  vote  for  the  resolution.  It  was  customary  in  the 
country,  in  which  he  was  brought  up,  to  have  assemblies  of 
this  kind  opened  by  prayer.  He  hoped  the  resolution 
would  pass. 

Mr.  Hepner  thought  it  extremely  difficult  for  men  to 
make  their  actions  conform  to  their  professions.  The  reso- 
lution introduced  violated  the  Bill  of  rights,  as  just  reported, 
and  if  it  should  be  adopted,  it  would  be  in  the  power  of 
the  Convention  to  have  a  call  of  the  house  and  force  the 
attendance  of  members,  whether  they  were  disposed  to 
have  prayer  or  not,  he  was  in  favor  of  a  free  exercise  of 
religious  services,  and  he  hoped  the  first  act  of  this  house 
would  not  be  in  opposition  to  the  Declaration  of  Rights. 

Mr.  Shelleday  did  not  feel  as  if  he  would  represent  cor- 
rectly, the  moral  feelings  of  his  constituents  by  remaining 
silent.     He  wished  to  meet  the  resolution  fairly  and  openly. 


Fragments  from  The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter.       i8i 

Gentlemen  were  not  sincere  in  their  opposition — he  believed 
it  was  a  uniform  practice  to  have  such  assemblies  opened 
by  prayer,  and  cited  the  example  of  Congress.  He  said  it 
would  be  recollected,  that  in  a  debate  in  Congress,  the  most 
profligate  and  wicked  were  made  to  feel  serious  when  the 
chaplain  made  a  prayer,  and  they  sunk  down  under  a  sense 
of  their  own  wickedness,  of  which  they  were  made  sensible. 
He  was  sorry  any  gentleman  considered  himself  independ- 
ent of  God  and  the  efRcacy  of  prayer.  He  should  support 
the  resolution,  as  he  wanted  it  to  [go]  forth  to  the  world  that 
there  was  one  green  spot  in  the  future  State  of  Iowa. 

Mr.  Lowe  of  Muscatine,  said  he  had  not  intended  to  have 
said  anything  in  this  discussion;  but  he  had  concluded  to 
say  one  word.  He  said  he  considered  that  the  amend- 
ment did  not  fairly  meet  the  question — it  was  skulking — it 
was  a  direct  attempt  to  defeat  the  resolution,  and  was 
unworthy  of  the  gentleman  who  introduced  it.  It  was  in 
the  line  of  safe  precedents  to  pass  this  resolution  as  it  orig- 
inally stood,  and  a  refusal  to  pass  it  would  be  an  imputation 
upon  the  House — one  that  he  hoped  would  not  be  permitted. 
He  said  that  religion  had  taken  a  deep  hold  in  this  country, 
and  the  time  would  soon  come  when  men  of  proper  moral 
and  religious  sentiments  would  alone  hold  the  offices  of  this 
country. 

Mr.  Quinton  professed  to  believe  in  the  doctrine  of  the 
bible;  he  should  sustain  the  amendment;  he  conceded  to  all, 
the  right  of  enjoying  religious  liberty  as  they  may  think 
best;  he  did  not  think  prayers  would  have  the  effect  to 
change  the  purpose  of  any  delegates.  In  the  name  of 
sense  and  reason,  do  not  compel  members  to  come  and 
hear  prayers,  whether  they  will  or  not;  leave  us  where  we 
should  be,  free  to  hear  prayers  when  and  where  we  may 
prefer. 


i82  Convetition  of  184^. 

DEBATE  ON  STATE  BOUNDARIES. 
Saturday,  Oct.  12. 

The  report  of  the  committee  on  Boundaries  being  under 
consideration,  Mr.  Clarke  moved  to  strike  out  from  said 
report  all  that  part  which  adopts  Sullivan's  line  as  the 
southern  boundary  of  Iowa,  and  in  lieu  thereof  to  insert  the 
words  "northern  boundary  line  of  the  State  of  Missouri." 

Mr.  C.  said  he  presumed  it  to  be  unnecessary  to  occupy 
much  of  the  time  of  the  Convention,  in  explaining  the 
object  of  his  amendment,  as  the  amendment  bore  that  upon 
its  face.  If  the  language  proposed  to  be  stricken  out  was 
retained,  it  would  force  upon  Congress,  in  connection  with 
our  admission,  the  settlement  of  the  disputed  boundary 
question  with  Missouri,  and  this  he  did  not  want  to  see. 
Any  other  time,  he  thought,  would  be  more  propitious  for 
the  adjustment  of  the  difficulty.  What  he  most  feared  was, 
that  Congress  would  not  give  the  subject  that  careful  and 
full  investigation  which  was  necessary  to  the  establishment 
of  our  claim :  but  for  the  sake  of  getting  rid  of  the  dispute, 
and  preventing  collision  in  future  between  the  States  of 
Missouri  and  Iowa,  would  decide  the  question  upon  grounds 
other  than  those  involved  in  the  merits  of  the  controversy. 
A  decision,  under  such  circumstances,  might  possibly  be 
against  Iowa,  and  this  was  what  he  was  most  anxious  to 
prevent.  It  would  not  be  asserted  that  even  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States  itself  would  encroach  upon  the  terri- 
torial limits  of  a  State,  but  it  was  clear  that  they  had  the  power 
to  add  to  those  limits.  In  this  case,  Missouri  sets  up  a 
claim — a  groundless  one  he  admitted,  but  still  it  was  a 
claim — to  a  portion  of  country  on  her  northern  boundary, 
over  which  Iowa  has  ever  exercised  jurisdiction.  Was 
there  not  danger,  that,  as  in  the  case  of  Michigan,  Con- 
gress, having  absolute  control  over  the  boundaries  of  Iowa, 
might  be  induced  to  accede  to  the  claim  of  Missouri,  and  as 


Fragments  from  The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter.      183 

a  salvo  to  us  extend  our  territorial  limits  on  the  north?  By- 
adopting  the  amendment  proposed,  the  question  of  boundary 
would  be  left  precisely  where  it  now  stands,  and  could  be 
decided  judicially  or  otherwise  hereafter  upon  its  own 
merits.  When  thus  decided,  Mr.  C.  had  no  fears  for  the 
result,  but  he  was  not  without  apprehension,  should  the 
question  be  forced  upon  Congress  when  we  come  before 
that  body  for  admission.  It  might  both  lose  us  the  terri- 
tory in  dispute,  and  retard  our  admission  into  the  Union. 

Mr.  Lucas  was  decidedly  and  unequivocally  opposed  to 
the  amendment  of  his  friend  from  Des  Moines,  (Mr.  Clarke.) 
It  was  in  his  opinion,  as  much  as  to  declare  by  our  consti- 
tution that  we  gave  up  our  own  right  to  the  disputed  tract. 
The  Sullivan  line  was  the  true  line — it  was  the  line  of 
demarcation  between  the  Surveyor  General's  district  land- 
offices  and  was  the  line  referred  to  in  all  the  Indian  treaties, 
etc. 

Mr.  Clarke  denied  that  by  adopting  his  amendment  the 
Convention  would  surrender,  or  in  any  way  prejudice  the 
claim  set  up  by  Iowa  to  the  Sullivan  line  as  her  southern 
boundary.  The  language  of  the  amendment  was  the  same 
as  that  employed  in  the  law  organizing  the  Territory,  by 
virtue  of  which,  Iowa  has  ever  exercised  jurisdiction  over 
the  strip  of  country  in  dispute.  It  would,  therefore,  be  giv- 
ing up  nothing,  but  the  question  would  be  left  just  as  it 
stands  at  present,  to  be  settled  in  such  way  as  might  be 
hereafter  agreed  upon  by  the  parties.  He  repelled  the 
charge  of  truckling  to  Missouri,  and  maintained  that  the 
adoption  of  his  amendment  was  necessary  to  avoid  endan- 
gering the  just  claim  of  Iowa  to  the  country  in  dispute. 
Congress  could  only  settle  the  question  finally  in  one  way, 
and  that  was  by  giving  the  country  in  dispute  to  Missouri. 
The  adoption  of  the  Sullivan  line  by  that  body  as  the 
southern  boundary  of  Iowa,  would  not  prejudice  the  claim 
of  Missouri,  if  well  founded,  and  the  subject  would  still 
remain  open  to  dispute. 


184  Convention  of  18^4.. 

Mr.  Peck  said  that  he  should  vote  for  the  amendment  of 
the  gentleman  from  Des  Moines,  and  if  for  no  other  reasons, 
the  facts  stated  by  the  venerable  gentleman  from  Johnson 
and  the  gentleman  from  Wapello  would  be  sufficient  with 
him. 

We  are  told  that  the  Sullivan  fine  is  the  true  line,  we  are 
also  told  that  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  has  re- 
peatedly recognized  this  line  as  the  true  one,  and  that  the 
state  of  Missouri  until  within  a  few  years  past  has  never 
set  up  any  claim  to  this  new  line;  that  they  have  always 
recognized  the  Sullivan  line. 

These  facts  then  establish  the  fact  that  the  Sullivan  line 
is  the  northern  boundary  line  of  the  State  of  Missouri.  The 
position  of  the  gentleman  from  Des  Moines,  therefore,  as- 
sumes the  same  line  as  the  one  asserted  in  terms  by  the  re- 
port of  the  committee. 

The  reason  stated  by  the  mover  of  this  amendment,  was 
truly  stated  and  the  object  clearly  elucidated,  and  this 
reason,  the  fact  that  if  we  assert  the  Sullivan  line  in  haec 
verba  will  insure  the  united  opposition  of  the  whole  repre- 
sentation from  the  State  of  Missouri,  which  would  inevitably 
force  a  decision  of  the  question  in  Congress,  and  would 
operate  to  either  keep  us  out  of  the  Union  or  admit  us  into 
the  Union  by  giving  the  disputed  tract  of  country  to  the 
State  of  Missouri.  For  it  must  be  admitted,  that  although 
Congress  may  give  additional  territory  to  a  State  they  can- 
not take  it  away. 

Again,  if  we  assume  the  northern  boundary  of  the  State 
of  Missouri  as  our  southern  line  we  shall  pass  through 
Congress  without  opposition,  and  this  will  leave  the  ques- 
tion open  for  future  settlement.  If  settled  in  Congress,  we 
shall  be  able  to  meet  the  question  on  something  like  equal 
terms,  and  if  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States, 
then  with  the  facts  which  the  gentleman  who  oppose  this 
amendment  say  exist  of  record,  we  shall  be  certain  of  sue- 


Fragments  from  The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter.      185 

cess  in  that  tribunal.  Then  as  a  question  of  pohcy,  and 
ardently  desiring  the  Sullivan  line  as  our  southern  boundary, 
I  shall  support  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Des 
Moines,  as  the  means  best  calculated  to  produce  that  result. 

As  to  appeasing  the  State  of  Missouri,  the  idea  is  out  of 
the  question ;  no  one  will  be  disposed  to  do  anything  of  that 
kind.     It  is  a  broad  question  of  expediency. 

Mr.  Hall  said  that  he  should  be  glad  to  hear  from  the 
members  from  Van  Buren.  He  should  hesitate  before  he 
cast  his  vote  contrary  to  their  views  upon  that  subject. 
They  were  more  deeply  interested,  and  had  a  right  to  have 
their  feelings  consulted. 

Mr.  Peck  knew  something  of  the  history  of  the  legisla- 
tion of  Congress  on  the  subject  of  the  northern  line  of  the 
half  breed  tract.  The  law  for  the  resurvey  of  the  northern 
line  of  that  tract  did  not  originate  in  Missouri  as  the  vener- 
able gentleman  from  Johnson  supposed  but  it  originated  on 
that  tract,  with  the  view  of  removing  it  south  some  six  or 
eight  miles,  and  thus  secure  pre-emptions  to  a  part  of  that 
tract  to  the  settlers. 

They  petitioned  Congress  to  that  effect  and  the  law  was 
passed,  but  the  next  session  the  counsels  of  speculators  in 
that  tract  residing  in  St.  Louis,  New  York,  and  Albany, 
prevailed  and  the  law  passed  ordering  a  resurvey  was 
repealed,  the  gentleman  was  therefore  mistaken  as  to  the 
origin  of  the  legislation  on  that  subject. 

Mr.  Hall  said  he  was  not  satisfied  either  with  the  argu- 
ment or  spirit  of  the  views  of  the  gentleman  from  Lee, 
(Mr.  Peck.)  That  gentleman  appeared  to  think  that  we 
should  truckle  to  Missouri  and  should  humble  ourselves  by 
withholding  our  true  intention. 

(Here  Mr.  Peck  arose  and  said  that  he  did  not  wish  to 
truckle  to  Missouri,  and  would  be  as  far  from  it  as  any 
other  gentleman.) 

Mr.  H.  continued  and  said  that  he  did  not  intend  to  im- 


1 86  Convention  of  1844. 

pute  the  language  to  that  gentleman,  but  he  thought  the 
spirit  of  his  remarks  would  justify  him  in  what  he  had  said. 
The  gentleman  from  Lee  had  said  that  if  we  adopted  Sulli- 
van's line  in  the  Constitution,  we  should  receive  in  Congress 
violent  opposition  from  the  Representatives  of  Missouri, 
but  if  we  left  the  question  open,  that  opposition  would  be 
avoided. 

Now  said  Mr.  H.  I  ask  the  question  what  is  there  in  this 
latter  proposition,  more  than  the  former,  to  justify  Missouri, 
unless  it  yields  the  very  cause  of  their  opposition  to  the  former, 
Missouri  opposes  our  admission  with  the  Sullivan  line. — 
That  is  the  line  we  want.  Now  can  we  avoid  the  oppo- 
sition of  Missouri  without  yielding  our  line.  Surely  gentle- 
men underrate  the  intelligence  and  sagacity  of  the  people 
of  Missouri.  They  must  think  we  yield  to  their  wishes  and 
we  must  make  them  think  so  before  they  will  be  satisfied, 
and  for  his  part  he  was  for  assuming  no  false  colors.  If  it 
is  right  to  go  to  Sullivan's  line  said  Mr.  H.,  let  us  go  and 
stand  there  until  driven  away  by  a  superior  power.  He 
would  never  consent  that  that  right  should  be  sacrificed  to 
policy.  "  That  man  was  double  armed  who  has  his  quarrel 
just." 

Mr.  Bailey,  was  pleased  that  the  proposition  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Desmoines  (Mr.  Clarke)  had  been  made  as  it 
had  elicited  many  facts  touching  this  subject  of  our  south- 
ern boundary.  He  was  of  opinion  however  that  it  was  of 
but  little  importance  whether  it  was  adopted  or  not.  He 
thought  the  matter  elicited  more  feeling,  and  discussion 
than  it  deserved.  He  said  he  could  not  see  that  the  amend- 
ment admitted  in  any  manner  the  claims  of  Missouri  to  the 
district  in  dispute.  He  had  understood  from  good  authority 
that  if  Iowa  would  not  agitate  the  subject  any  more,  Mis- 
souri would  not. 

Mr.  Chapman  was  willing  to  let  the  question  of  admission, 
situated  as  our  Southern  boundary  was  at  present,  terminate 


Fragments  from  The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter.      187 

upon  the  maintenance  of  the  Sullivan  line.  He  stated  that 
our  just  rights  would  give  us  a  line  still  farther  South — but 
settlements,  both  in  Iowa  and  Missouri,  had  been  made  with 
a  view  to  the  latter  line  as  our  Southern  boundary,  and  he 
was  opposed  to  manifesting  by  our  acts  or  our  Constitution 
that  we  entertained  any  doubts  on  the  subject.  Our  claims 
said  he,  had  been  sustained  by  the  unanimous  opinion  of 
Congress  with  the  exception  of  the  members  from  Missouri. 
He  thought  the  adoption  of  the  amendment  under  consid- 
eration would  be  considered  a  virtual  surrender  of  our  just 
rights,  the  right  of  Sullivan's  line  as  our  Southern  boundary, 
and  for  his  part  he  was  entirely  unwilling,  even  at  the  risk 
of  getting  into  the  Union,  to  surrender  our  just  and  well 
established  Southern  line.  He  went  into  a  lengthy  argu- 
ment to  show  that  Congress  had  the  legal  and  Constitutional 
right  to  decide  the  dispute  in  question  as  the  boundary;  and 
he  thought  the  proper  time  for  settling  it,  was  when  we  are 
admitted  into  the  Union. 

Mr.  Fletcher  said  that  he  was  of  the  opinion,  that  if  the 
resolution  of  the  gentleman  from  Des  Moines  was  adopted, 
and  our  Constitution  sent  to  Congress  defining  our  Southern 
boundary  to  be  the  Northern  boundary  of  Missouri,  Con- 
gress would  not  admit  us  with  a  boundary  thus  defined. 
Gentleman  might  rest  assured  that  Congress  would  pro- 
vide, in  some  way,  for  the  settlement  of  this  question  of 
conflicting  jurisdiction  between  us  and  the  State  of  Missouri, 
before  we  were  admitted  into  the  Union.  It  was  desirable 
and  important  that  the  question  should  be  settled;  we  have 
already  had  one  blank  cartridge  war  about  the  dispute ;  and 
to  admit  us  as  proposed  by  the  amendment  offered  by  the 
gentleman  from  Des  Moines  would  bring  us  into  immediate 
conflict  with  the  authorities  of  Missouri.  Mr.  F.  thought  it 
not  unlikely  that  the  dispute  would  be  settled  at  our  expense 
but  he  thought  it  right,  aud  best  for  us  to  claim  our  right, 
to  make  our  case  and  if  we  succeeded  well;  if  not,  it  would 


1 88  Convention  of  184.4. 

be  an  after  consideration  whether  Iowa  would  accept  of  a 
boundary  established  arbitrarily  in  opposition  to  right  and 
justice  to  accommodate  the  State  of  Missouri. 


REMARKS  OF  MR.  HALL 

In  Convention,  on  the  Report  of  the  Committee  on 
Incorporations . 

Mr.  Hall  said  he  would  like  to  know  why  the  Convention 
was  acting  upon  a  particular  branch  of  business  ?  Why 
attempt  to  exclude  it  ?  Was  it  because  the  exercise  of  that 
particular  business  was  pernicious,  and  at  war  with  the 
rights  and  interests  of  society?  Was  the  evil  in  business 
itself  or  the  abuse  practiced  by  those  engaged  in  it  ?  If 
not  in  the  business  itself,  then  we  should  correct  the  abuse 
and  let  it  stand  or  fall  upon  its  own  legitimate  merits.  If 
he  understood  this  question  the  proposition  embraces  the 
entire  scope  of  Banking.  It  was  a  question  between  equal 
rights  and  special  privileges.  In  the  first  place  we  propose 
to  exclude  it  from  the  whole  people. — In  the  second  place 
give  it  back  to  the  few.  This  presupposes  that  the  business 
itself  is  mischievous  and  immoral,  and  the  general  welfare 
requires  its  suppression — the  other  that  a  mischievous  and 
immoral  principle  can  be  safely  confided  to  a  choice  few 
and  prove  beneficial  to  all.  Now  said  Mr.  Hall  if  the 
business  is  incomprehensible  with  the  interest  of  society  it 
should  be  excluded  altogether,  we  should  only  lessen  an 
evil  by  circumscribing  and  restricting  its  operations — we 
cannot  make  it  right.  Now,  said  Mr.  Hall,  from  the  best 
view  and  observation  that  he  had  been  able  to  take  of  this 
subject,  the  evil  is  not  in  the  exercise  of  the  business  itself 
— not  in  the  case  of  credit  when  left  to  the  legitimate  laws 
of  trade — when  placed  upon  the  same  footing  with  all  other 


Fragments  from  The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter.      189 

branches  of  business.  A  man  has  just  as  good  a  right  to 
sell  his  note  as  his  house,  and  the  owner  of  a  horse  has  just 
as  good  a  right  to  sell  his  horse  for  a  note  as  for  money, 
and  any  law  or  rule  that  interferes  with  this  right,  is  pal- 
pably unjust.  Credit  is  a  right,  which  a  man  earns  and  is 
a  part  of  his  property,  as  much  as  veracity  or  honesty  is  a 
part  of  his  character.  There  we  should  leave  every  man 
to  enjoy  their  privileges  equally.  Those  who  earn  and 
obtain  the  most,  should  be  permitted  to  enjoy  the  most  with- 
out diminution  or  interruption.  Credit  left  to  the  ordinary 
laws  of  trade  would  necessarily  be  confined  to  actual 
business  transactions,  no  more  would  be  done  than  the 
wants  of  the  country  would  require — reality  would  be  the 
basis  upon  which  every  transaction  would  rest,  and  scrutiny 
and  caution  would  be  every  man's  protection  against  impo- 
sition and  fraud.  Equality  would  prevent  any  great  dis- 
parity in  the  real  value  of  business  paper,  and  discounts  of 
paper  for  paper  would  be  unheard  of.  In  view  of  these 
principles  how  stands  the  modern  system  of  banking.  In 
the  first  place  laws  prohibit  the  exercise  of  business 
altogether.  In  the  second  place  special  privileges  are 
granted  to  a  few  to  monopolise  the  business  to  the  exclu- 
sion of  all  others.  In  consequence  of  this  legal  favor, 
this  limited  privilege:  the  credit  of  those  who  enjoy  the 
privileges  is  immediately  advanced  beyond  that  of  all  others, 
which  enables  them  to  sell  their  credit  at  a  large  profit. 
Thus  the  man  who  is  really  entitled  to  an  equal  credit,  with 
the  Bank,  is  compelled  to  sell  his  credit  to  the  Bank,  and 
pay  a  difference  in  discount  before  he  can  use  it  in  his 
ordinary  business.  By  this  means  we  transfer  the  credit  of 
the  business  men  to  the  Bank  and  substitutes  that  of  the 
Bank,  to  the  people  or  the  country.  The  price  paid  for  this 
substitution  of  Bank  paper  for  individual  paper  is  a  dead 
loss  to  the  community.  The  very  paper  issued  by  the 
Bank  is  borrowed   upon  the  notes  discounted,  and   their 


ipo  Convention  of  1844. 

security  is  really  the  assurance  for  the  solvency  of  the  Bank 
or  the  redemption  of  its  issues.  Thus  the  real  security 
given  by  the  Bank  to  the  people,  (viewed  in  the  most  favor- 
able light,)  is  no  better  than  the  one  given  to  the  Bank  by 
the  citizens.  If  the  Bank  can  credit  the  citizen  well,  the 
basis  is  credit  upon  that  of  the  citizen,  ought  not  the  citizen 
to  credit  the  citizen  and  will  they  not  do  so  as  far  as  that 
credit  can  be  safely  trusted.  But  it  is  said  that  the  Bank 
has  a  capital  in  addition  to  the  paper  discounted,  very  true, 
but  the  individual  citizen  has  a  capital  also  upon  which  he 
relies  to  meet  his  obligations,  and  is  the  only  source  of  con- 
fidence. 

One  of  the  effects  of  special  banking  privileges  is  that  it 
forces  the  citizen  to  exchange  his  credit  with  the  Bank 
before  he  can  use  it,  and  pay  the  difference,  this  difference 
is  added  to  his  capital  in  trade  and  must  be  met  by  an  in- 
creased price  charged  against  those  with  whom  he  deals. 
The  effect  is  invariably  that  the  producing  class  foot  the 
Bill.  It  is  said  it  adds  capital  to  the  country,  and  makes 
money  plenty.  It  has  the  same  effect  as  debasing  coin,  it 
makes  more  specie  but  really  of  less  value.  When  the 
issues  of  the  paper  circulation  passes  the  point  where  indi- 
vidual credit  necessarily  must  reach,  it  becomes  fictitious — 
it  becomes  a  representative  without  a  constituent,  conse- 
quently no  representative  at  all — 'tis  a  fiction,  a  delusion,  a 
fraud. 

Gentlemen  talk  wisely  and  largely  about  restriction — 
give  us  well  restricted  Banks  is  the  cry.  They  apply  the 
word  improperly — they  assume  a  point  or  pinnacle  for 
Bank  privileges  that  has  nothing  but  fraud,  swindling  and 
rascahty  as  associates,  and  then  talk  of  restrictions,  restrict 
it  down  to  a  place  where  it  cannot  basely  commit  these 
frauds  and  there  it  will  be  well  regulated,  safe  and  sure. 
They  first  restrict  them  up,  and  then  restrict  them  down — 
gentlemen  may  talk  as  they  will,  and  reason  as  they  do, 


Fragments  from  The  Iowa  Capital  Re-porter.      191 

restriction  in  the  sense  they  use  it,  only  means  a  limit  to  a 
special  privilege — equality  requires  no  restriction — The 
privilege  of  being  equal  is  the  only  privilege  that  this  State 
should  ever  sanction. 

The  credit  of  Banks,  is  confidence  and  that  confidence 
produced  by  special  favors  granted  by  law.  'Tis  the  legal 
sanction,  the  stamp  of  approbation  created  by  the  charter 
that  gives  the  credit,  not  the  intrinsic  merit  of  the  Bank; 
take  that  away  and  like  Sampson,  shave  off  his  locks  they 
become  weak  like  other  men.  This  then  is  the  fatal  error; 
the  State  makes  itself  a  party  to  the  fraud  by  giving  it  a 
charter  as  a  cloak  to  hide  its  deformity  and  delude  the 
people.  With  the  glistning  alurement  of  money  a  sa  bait 
for  cupidity  and  avarice,  clothed  with  such  restrictive  laws 
by  the  government,  their  every  step,  and  move,  but  "leads  to 
bewilder  and  dazzles  to  blind."  The  victim  of  fraud  is 
turned  away  without  pity,  cause,  passion  or  relief.  We 
tolerate  the  principle  from  habit,  not  because  it  is  just  or 
right,  should  a  proposition  be  presented  to  grant  such  priv- 
ileges to  any  other  branch  of  business  it  would  be  frowned 
down,  nay  hissed  out  of  the  house,  but  this  we  readily  em- 
brace with  eager  delight.  Yet  the  man  who  has  money  to 
loose  has  no  more  claim  to  special  privileges  than  the  man 
who  digs  potatoes  or  splits  rails,  if  either — the  latter  are 
entitled  to  the  power. 

The  let  alone  policy  was  surely  a  safe  one.  The  example 
of  the  past  sheds  no  light  to  guide  us  to  a  true  and  safe 
harbor.  It  merely  stands  as  a  lamp,  a  beacon  to  warn  of 
danger,  not  to  conduct  to  safety.  The  people  will  ever 
find  that  "a  Bank  of  earth  is  the  best  Bank,  and  the  best 
share,  a  Plough  share." 


192  Convention  of  1844. 

REMARKS  OF  MR.  FLETCHER, 

On  an  amendment  made  to  the  Report  of  the  fudiciary 

Committee,  relative  to  the  election  of  fudges 

by  the  people. 

Mr.  Fletcher  said  he  had  intended  to  say  something  in 
support  of  the  amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Dubuque,  inasmuch  as  he  was  instructed  by  his  constituents 
to  support  the  principle  which  it  contains,  but  he  considered 
that  the  question  had  been  fairly  argued  by  the  gentleman 
who  had  spoken  upon  the  subject.  The  gentleman  from 
Wapello,  he  said,  had  advanced  most  of  the  arguments 
which  he  had  prepared  to  offer  to  the  consideration  of  the 
Convention,  and  had  presented  them  in  a  better  and  more 
forcible  manner  than  he  could  have  done,  he  would,  how- 
ever, ask  the  indulgence  of  the  Convention  a  few  moments 
while  he  offered  a  few  considerations  on  some  points,  rela- 
tive to  the  question,  which  had  not  been  particularly  noticed. 

Mr.  F.  said  that  he  believed  that  the  correctness  of  the 
principle  for  which  the  friends  of  the  amendment  contended, 
was  conceded;  it  was  conceded  that  the  people  were  the 
source  and  fountain  of  power,  and  that  they  had  the  right 
to  elect  their  officers  themselves,  directly  or  to  delegate 
the  power  to  elect  them  in  any  way  and  manner  they 
chose.  The  question,  at  issue  then,  was  whether  it  was 
expedient  for  the  people  to  delegate  to  the  Legislature  the 
power  to  elect  their  judges.  He  said  that  delegated  power 
was  often  abused;  that  it  was  at  all  times  liable  to  abuse; 
that  the  true  policy  was  for  the  people  to  delegate  power 
only  when  convenience  or  necessity  requires  it,  and  in  cases 
when  some  decided  advantage  could  be  gained  by  so  doing. 
He  contended  that  neither  economy  nor  convenience  were 
consulted  by  delegating  to  the  Legislature  the  authority  to 
appoint  our  judicial  officers. 

The  denial  that  any  advantage  had  been  shown,  by  the 


Fragments  from  The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter.       193 

friends  of  delegated  power  as  being  the  legitimate  result  of 
the  mode  of  appointment,  which  they  propose;  he  said, 
they  assume  the  position,  that  the  people  do  not  wish  to 
elect  their  judges,  that  they  prefer  to  delegate  this  authority 
to  the  legislature.  This,  he  said,  was  a  matter  of  fact, 
which  could  be  correctly  ascertained,  only,  by  referring  the 
question  directly  to  the  people.  The  question,  he  said,  had 
been  discussed  before  the  people  in  some  portions  of  the 
Territory;  and  the  result  has  been,  that  the  people  have 
expressed  a  preference  to  retain  in  their  own  hand  the  right 
to  elect  their  own  judges.  Mr.  F.  said  he  considered  the 
decision  of  the  people  in  this  case  to  be  right:  he  believed 
that  it  would  be  injudicious  for  the  people  to  delegate  this 
power  to  the  legislature.  The  gentleman  from  Johnson 
had  cited  this  Convention  to  instances  where  the  legislature 
of  a  State  had  frequently  abused  this  power,  by  appointing 
judges  to  a  district,  who  were  odious  to  the  people.  Mr. 
F.  said  he  considered  this  power  safer  in  the  hands  of  the 
people  than  in  the  hands  of  the  legislature;  he  said  it  had 
been  found  not  a  very  difficult  matter  to  corrupt  the  legis- 
lature, but  it  was  not  an  easy  matter  to  corrupt  a  whole 
community.  The  Convention,  he  said,  had  decided  that  the 
powers  of  the  government  of  the  State  of  Iowa,  should  be 
divided  into  three  distinct  departments;  the  executive,  legis- 
lative and  judicial,  and  the  policy  of  the  Convention  should 
be  to  make  a  proper  distribution  of  the  powers  of  the  gov- 
ernment among  those  several  departments,  so  as  to  consti- 
tute each,  the  immediate,  and  co-equal  representative  of  the 
people.  The  Convention  had  thus  constituted  the  execu- 
tive and  legislative  departments;  and  to  preserve  the 
symetry,  and  carry  out  the  true  theory  of  our  representa- 
tive government;  the  judicial  department  should  be  consti- 
tuted in  like  manner.  He  said  that  gentlemen  opposed  to 
this  theory,  argue  that  the  judges,  thus  elected  by  the 
people,  would  be  compelled,  and  would  abuse  their  power 
13 


ip4  Convention  0/184.4. 

for  electioneering  purposes.  The  gentleman  from  Wapello 
(Mr.  Chapman,)  who  had  just  occupied  the  floor,  had,  he 
said,  shown  conclusively,  that  so  far  from  having  this  effect, 
it  would  have  an  effect  directly  the  reverse;  he  had  shown 
that  to  make  a  judge  directly  depending  upon  the  people 
for  office,  and  for  continuance  in  office,  was  to  impose  on 
him  a  most  salutary  restraint  against  any  deviation  from  the 
path  of  duty;  that  the  argument  against  the  election  of 
judges,  applied  with  equal,  and  even  more  force  against  the 
election  of  justices  of  the  peace.  He  said,  that,  if  the  posi- 
tion taken  by  the  gentlemen  opposed  to  the  election  of 
judges  by  the  people  be  correct,  then  it  was  clearly  the  duty 
of  the  Convention  to  provide  for  the  appointment  of  all 
the  judicial  officers  of  the  State,  by  a  power  as  remote  from 
the  people  as  possible,  the  judges,  during  the  term  of  court, 
should  be  guarded  by  an  officer  of  the  law,  as  jurors  are 
guarded — they  ought  not  to  be  allowed  to  live  in  the  dis- 
trict where  they  preside — they  should  be  kept  aloof  from 
their  fellow  citizens — they  should  be  cut  off  from  the  com- 
mon sympathies  and  charities  of  life — they  should  live  in 
solitude  and  seclusion — all  this,  he  said,  might  be,  and  ought 
to  be,  if  the  position  that  judges  are  so  easily  contaminated 
be  correct;  however  important  it  might  have  been  con- 
sidered in  former  ages  to  throw  around  the  temple  of  jus- 
tice, and  the  altar  of  religion,  a  mantle  of  artificial  and  con- 
ventional sanctity,  such  appendages  at  the  present  day,  had 
no  other  effect  than  to  corrupt  the  one,  and  desecrate  the 
other.  Mr.  F.  said  that  it  was  true  that  judges  were 
influenced  in  their  official  conduct,  on  the  bench,  by  con- 
siderations of  personal  friendships  and  enmities;  he  did  not 
consider  the  evil  remedied  by  the  mode  of  appointment, 
advanced  by  the  gentleman;  place  the  judges,  he  said,  inde- 
pendent of  the  people,  and  give  them  a  salary  which  would 
enable  them  to  move  in  the  circle  with  the  wealthy  and 
aristocratic  classes  of  community,  and  what  guaranty,  he 


Fragments  from  The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter.      195 

asked,  would  be  given,  that  the  judges  would  not,  in  their 
decisions,  consult  the  interests  of  those  with  whom  all  their 
sympathies  were  associated,  and  on  whose  influence  they 
depended  to  secure  their  continuance  in  office.  It  was  the 
opinion  of  statesmen  that  the  judiciary  had  a  strong  ten- 
dency to  aristocracy  and  the  assumption  of  arbitrary  power. 
Mr.  F.  said,  that,  next  to  the  principle  of  truth  and  integ- 
rity which  ought  to,  and  which  did  govern  the  conduct  of 
every  honest  man;  the  consideration  that  his  official  conduct 
would  be  duly  appreciated  by  the  community  whom  he 
served,  was  the  thorough  motive  which  could  be  brought 
to  bear  upon  the  mind  of  an  honorable  man,  holding  public 
office.  He  held  that  the  surest  guaranty,  which  could  be 
had  for  the  fidelity  and  good  conduct  of  all  public  officers, 
was  to  make  them  directly  responsible  to  the  people. 


REMARKS  OF  MR.  FLETCHER 

On  Mr.  Chaj^mati's  resolution  to  strike  out  all  but  the  first 
section  of  the  report  of  the  committee  on  incorporations. 

Mr.  Fletcher  said,  that  before  he  recorded  his  vote  on 
the  amendment,  he  wished  to  follow  the  example  of  several 
gentlemen  and  define  his  position.  Much  of  the  discussion 
upon  the  subject  to-day,  had  reference  to  the  vote  passed 
yesterday,  upon  the  adoption  of  the  report  of  the  minority, 
prohibiting  the  chartering  of  all  banks  of  discount :  his  col- 
eague  had  expressed  his  opinion  that  three-fourths  of  the 
citizens  of  Muscatine  county  were  in  favor  of  banking;  he 
differed  with  his  colleague,  in  opinion,  upon  this  subject. 

Mr,  Fletcher  said  he  considered  that  the  very  liberal 
provisions,  which  had  been  agreed  upon  by  the  committee, 
to  amend  the  constitution,  warranted  any  gentlemen,  who 
were  opposed  to  banking,  in  voting  for  the  prohibition  con- 


ip6  Convention  of  18/^.4.. 

tained  in  the  minority  report.  Through  the  provision  in 
the  constitution,  to  amend  the  same,  the  people,  if  they 
choose,  could  have  a  bank  created  in  as  short  a  time,  as  a 
bank  could  go  into  operation,  as  provided  for  by  the  report 
under  consideration,  he  considered  the  question  decided 
yesterday,  of  more  consequence  than  any  other  which  had 
come  before  the  convention;  he  regretted  the  result  of  the 
vote  taken  yesterday. —  One  of  the  great  objections  to 
banking,  is,  that  it  is  difficult  to  get  rid  of  the  evils  which  it 
entails  upon  community;  it  had  been  found  much  easier  to 
create  banks,  than  it  was  to  control  them,  when  once  estab- 
lished. We  had  but  one  bank  in  the  Territory  now,  and 
he  thought  the  experiment — whether  a  community  could 
not  sustain  itself  without  banks — worth  trying.  Mr.  F. 
said  that  the  Convention,  by  prohibiting  bank  corporations, 
would  establish  a  precedent  which  would,  in  its  influence 
on  public  sentiment,  be  permanent  and  salutary. 

Mr.  F.  said  that  he  had  flattered  himself  that  he  should 
find,  in  a  majority  of  this  Convention,  the  friends  of  equal 
rights;  he  had  hoped  that  there  would  be  one  spot  found 
in  North  America,  where  the  Whig  doctrine  of  bank  mon- 
opolies and  special  privileges  did  not  exist,  he  had  hoped 
that  this  Convention,  would  provide,  that  the  industrious 
citizens  of  other  States,  and  other  countries,  who  had  been 
robbed  of  their  substance  by  the  direct,  or  indirect  opera- 
tion of  banks,  might,  in  Iowa,  find  a  refuge  and  a  home, 
where  they  could  enjoy  the  fruits  of  their  own  labor  in 
peace,  without  being  compelled  to  support  a  privileged 
class,  or  order  of  men. 

Mr.  F.  said  that  he  voted  in  a  very  lean  minority; — he 
would  not  impune  the  motive  of  any  gentleman  who  voted 
with  the  majority  on  the  question  of  prohibiting  banking  in 
the  State  of  Iowa,  he  did  not  allow  himself  to  call  in 
question  the  motives  which  governed  members  in  their 
vote;  he  could  not,  for  a  moment,  believe  that  any  gentle- 


Fragments  from  The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter.       197 

man  was  influenced  in  the  least  by  considerations  of  the 
immediate  or  remote  consequences  which  their  vote  might 
have  upon  their  popularity. 

Mr.  F.  said  he  believed  the  time  was  not  far  distant,  when 
gentlemen  would  take  a  different  view  of  this  subject — 
when  they  would  look  back  with  unavailing  regret,  that, 
when  called  upon  by  the  friends  of  equal  rights,  to  come  to 
the  rescue,  that  they  lacked  the  nerve  to  throw  themselves 
into  the  breach,  and  save  the  State  from  the  withering,  and 
blighting  curse  of  bank  monopolies. 

Mr.  F.,  said  that,  considering  the  position  in  which  he 
now  stood  in  relation  to  this  subject,  he  should  consider  it 
his  duty  to  vote  for  all  amendments,  which  he  should 
consider  salutary — reserving  to  himself,  the  right  to  vote 
against  the  whole  measure  on  its  final  passage. 


SPEECH  OF  THE  HON.  STEPHEN  HEMPSTEAD. 

Delivered  in  Convention,  on  the  Banking  Systems 

Mr.  Hempstead  said  that  he  was  opposed  to  banks  of 
discount  and  circulation,  and  would  briefly  state  to  the  con- 
vention, his  reasons  for  that  opposition,  nor  in  his  opinion 

1  The  Hawkeye,  and  if  we  mistake  not,  some  other  of  tlie  Whig  papers 
in  the  Territory,  shortly  after  the  adjournment  of  the  Convention  for  the 
formation  of  a  Constitution,  manifested  an  itching  to  criticise  and  ridicule 
Mr.  Hempstead,  of  Dubuque,  relative  to  his  remarks  as  reported  in  the 
Standard  of  this  city,  on  the  subject  of  Banking.  In  order  that  we  might 
be  able  to  give  the  sentiments  of  that  gentleman,  we  requested  of  him  a 
correct  copy  of  his  speech  made  at  the  time  the  Banking  clause  was  under 
consideration,  and  we  this  week  present  to  the  public  a  copy  as  corrected 
by  himself,  and  hope  that  it  will  receive  the  candid  consideration  of  our 
readers.  The  Hawkeye  may,  if  it  sees  proper,  print  it  on  satin  for  the  use 
of  its  whig  friends  and  patrons. 

The  speech  was  accidentally  mislaid  or  it  would  have  appeared  before 
the  present  time. 

—From  Tke  Iowa  Capital  Reporter,  Vol.  IV.,  No.  5,  March  8th,  1845. 


ip8  Convention  of  1844. 

was  it  difficult  to  demonstrate  that  the  system  of  banking 
as  carried  on  in  the  United  States  at  the  present  time  was 
the  most  cunning  scheme  ever  devised  by  mortal  man  for 
the  purpose  of  swindling  the  people,  plundering  them  of 
their  substance  and  filling  the  land  with  misery,  dishonesty, 
and  crime. 

The  system  of  banking  which  was  generally  practiced  in 
the  States  and  Territories  of  the  American  Union,  com- 
bined from  several  functions,  that  is  to  say,  to  loan  money, 
to  receive  money  on  deposit,  to  discount  notes  and  bills  of 
exchange,  and  to  manufacture  paper  money  for  circulation, 
and  for  exercise  of  those  privileges,  companies  of  private 
individuals  were  incorporated  by  the  Legislatures  of  the 
different  States  and  Territories.  As  the  amendment  only 
proposed  to  prohibit  the  establishment  of  banks  of  circula- 
tion and  discount  in  that  State  he  would  therefore  confine 
his  remarks  to  those  two  banking  powers,  merely  observ- 
ing that  banks  of  deposit  could  do  no  great  harm  as  the 
legitimate  object  of  their  establishment  being  only  for  the 
safe  keeping,  and  transfer,  of  coin  and  bullion.  Such  was 
the  bank  of  Venice  and  of  more  recent  times  of  Amsterdam 
and  Hamburg. 

Of  banks  of  discount  he  would  say  that  they  were  estab- 
lished for  the  purpose  of  discounting  notes  and  bills  of 
exchange,  or  in  other  words  were  invested  with  the  privi- 
lege by  the  sovereign  authority  of  the  country  to  live  and 
fatten  upon  the  distresses  and  misfortunes  of  their  fellow 
men — to  take  advantage  of  their  necessities  by  extorting 
from  those  who  applied  for  their  favors  exorbitant  interest 
or  discount,  and  finally  to  entrap  the  unsuspecting  in  their 
queer  laid  net,  that  they  may  the  more  effectually  accom- 
plish the  object  of  their  institution.  But  to  see  the  full 
effect  of  this  privilege,  it  is  necessary  to  consider  it  in  con- 
nection with  the  power  to  manufacture  paper  money  for 
circulation,  a  power  that  is  founded  in  the  wrong,  exercised 


Fragments  from  The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter.       199 

in  wrong,  and  at  war  with  the  best  interests  of  society. 
What  gentleman  here  would  contend  that  it  was  a  rightful 
exercise  of  the  sovereign  power  of  the  people,  to  authorize 
by  law  a  company  of  public  or  private  individuals  to  loan 
their  credit  to  twice  or  three  times  the  amount  of  their 
actual  means  of  payment,  or  in  other  words  to  issue  two  or 
three  paper  dollars  for  every  dollar  they  may  have  in  specie. 
Why  should  they  be  authorized  to  do  this,  or  where  is  the 
reason  or  propriety  of  the  grant  of  this  extraordinary  privi- 
lege? Mr.  H.  insisted  that  no  good  or  valid  reason  could 
be  given  why  the  state  or  government  should  thus  heap, 
with  a  lavish  hand,  her  bounties  or  exclusive  privileges  on 
a  few  individuals — it  was  contrary  to  the  spirit  and  genius 
of  Republican  institutions.  But  this  was  not  all,  for  those 
banks  thus  established  were  also  authorized  to  charge  6  or 
7  per  cent,  interest  upon  the  paper  which  they  may  loan. 
It  will  be  remembered  that  it  is  not  the  gold  and  silver  or 
actual  money,  which  they  loan  but  their  credit  in  the  shape 
of  promissory  notes  or  bank  bills,  upon  which  they  charge 
interest  or  discount  at  the  rates  before  stated.  To  make 
the  matter  plain,  he  would  say  that  a  bank  with  a  capital  of 
$100,000  is  authorized  to  issue  its  notes  to  twice  the  amount 
actually  paid  in:  it  issues  its  notes  to  the  amount  of  $200,000 
and  receive  interest  or  discount  on  that  sum.  Was  it  not 
clear  that  the  capital  and  credit,  or  faith,  that  such  bank 
could  redeem  and  pay  two  dollars  with  one  thus  combined 
in  a  tangible  form  in  the  shape  of  bank  notes,  and  it 
receives  interest  on  the  whole  amount?  This,  therefore, 
enables  the  bank  to  obtain  usurious  interest  on  their  actual 
capital.  If  an  individual  charged  usury,  in  some  of  the 
States  he  was  punished  by  the  loss  of  the  whole  debt,  but 
bankers  loaned  their  credit  and  took  interest  for  two  or 
three  times  more  than  they  really  possessed.  This  was 
because  they  were  rich,  and  able  to  acquire  an  influence. 
Another  evil  was  that  banks  of  circulation  or  issue  added 


200  Convention  of  1844.. 

to  the  mass  of  circulating  medium,  thereby  increasing  the 
quantity  without  adding  to  its  value. — Money  being  the 
measure  of  value,  as  well  as  an  instrument  of  exchange — 
it  would  therefore  follow  as  a  necessary  consequence,  that, 
although  the  volume  of  circulating  medium  be  enlarged  by 
an  adulteration  of  the  matters  of  which  it  is  composed,  or 
the  emission,  something  else  in  its  place;  yet  the  quantity 
of  pure  money  (gold  and  silver)  remains  the  same,  and 
just  as  much  as  it  had  been  increased  in  quantity  it  had  di- 
minished in  quality,  and  would  measure  no  more  value  than 
it  did  before  the  infusion  of  alloy  or  other  valueless  matter 
into  the  mass.  Mr.  H.  said  that  what  he  wished  to  show 
by  this  was,  that  by  the  issue  of  paper  money  or  bank 
notes,  a  change  in  the  relative  proportion  between  money 
and  other  commodities,  by  an  artificial  increase  of  quantity 
without  an  increase  of  value,  would  produce  a  change  of 
price,  and  that  in  this  way  we  might  readily  discover  the 
foundation  of  the  frequent  fluctuations  which  had  occasioned 
so  much  bankruptcy  and  distress  in  the  United  States. 

Under  bank  expansions  or  great  issues  of  paper  money, 
property  acquires  a  fictitious  value — speculations  were 
entered  into  and  men  became  gamblers  at  the  shrine  of 
fortune,  and  victims  of  that  fickle  Godess.  After  an  "ex- 
pansion," said  Mr.  H.,  comes  a  "contraction,"  and  those 
banks  which  had  created  all  the  mischief,  withdraw  their 
credit  and  a  new  scheme  is  then  exhibited — the  property 
which  was  considered  worth  thousands  yesterday  is  value- 
less to-day — ruin  and  bankruptcy  is  inflicted  upon  the  com- 
munity, and  the  hammer  of  the  Sheriff  and  Auctioneer,  are 
heard  in  the  village  and  city  throughout  the  land. 

I  care  not,  said  Mr.  H.,  if  you  incorporate  a  bank  upon 
the  plan  of  your  majority  report,  you  have  no  security  that 
abuses  will  not  take  place.  The  second  rule  provided  that 
"such  bank  or  branches  shall  not  commence  operation  until 
half  the  capital  stock  subscribed  for  be  actually  paid  in  gold 


Fragments  from  The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter.      201 

and  silver,  which  amount  in  no  case  shall  be  "less  than  one 
hundred  thousand  dollars."  How  was  this  fact  to  be  ascer- 
tained? It  must  be  by  commissioners  or  persons  appointed 
for  that  purpose. — Mr.  H.  had  read  of  an  occurrence  in 
Massachusetts  which  would  show  how  easily  such  commis- 
sioner could  be  deceived. — A  number  of  banks  had  been 
incorporated  by  the  legislature  of  that  State,  and  a  certain 
amount  was  required  to  be  paid  in  specie  before  they  were 
authorized  to  commence  business,  and  to  ascertain  that  fact, 
Commissioners  were  appointed  to  examine  and  report  to 
the  Secretary  of  State.  These  banks  not  having  the  specie 
paid  in,  the  necessary  amount  was  borrowed  and  placed  in 
the  bank  first  to  be  examined;  when  the  Commissioners 
came  they  saw  that  the  necessary  amount  was  there,  and 
made  out  their  report  accordingly,  and  the  same  money  was 
transferred  from  that  bank  to  each  of  the  others,  and  ex- 
amined by  the  Commissioners  who  were  thus  deceived, 
and  in  consequence  made  a  favorable  report  which  enabled 
each  of  these  banks  to  go  into  operation.  This  could  be 
done  in  the  establishment  of  banks  and  branches  in  this 
State  as  well  as  Massachusetts. 

The  majority  report  also  provided  that  the  stockholders 
should  be  individually  liable  for  the  debts  of  the  bank.  To 
show  that  this  restriction  could  be  easily  evaded,  it  was  only 
necessary  to  refer  to  the  State  of  Michigan,  where  a  seem- 
ingly thorough  system  of  banking  had  been  established, 
where  the  stockholders  were  required  to  pledge  real  estate 
for  the  payment  of  the  debts  contracted  by  banking  cor- 
porations; nearly  all  of  them  failed  but  the  real  estate  was 
not  to  be  found,  or  if  discovered  was  of  no  value;  conse- 
quently hundred  of  thousands  of  individuals  were  deceived 
and  many  ruined  by  such  plausible  and  apparent  security. 
Such  restrictions  not  unfrequently  tend  to  deceive  honest 
and  unsuspecting  men — men  who  know  nothing  of  the 
complicated  machinery  of  banking  and  swindling,  until  they 


202  Convention  of  184.^. 

find  themselves  despoiled  of  their  property,  their  wives  and 
children  driven  from  their  happy  homes  upon  an  unchar- 
itable world,  and  themselves  the  inmates  of  a  prison. 

Human  wisdom,  said  Mr.  H.,  could  not  devise  a  plan 
that  would  keep  banking  corporations  within  the  bounds  of 
honesty  and  fair  dealing — they  would  overstep  any  of  the 
barriers  that  the  Legislature  or  the  Constitution  might 
place  around  them. 

Another  objection  to  banking  corporations  was  that  they 
created  no  real  capital  in  the  country,  but  only  used  what 
had  been  created  by  miners,  farmers,  and  the  laboring 
portion  of  the  community,  or  in  other  words  that  they  were 
not  the  producers  of  anything  valuable  to  mankind  but 
traded  and  speculated  upon  the  money  which  had  been 
produced  by  others.  Mr.  H.  had  always  understood  it  to 
be  a  sound  maxim  of  political  economy,  that  the  wealth  of 
a  country  consisted  in  its  industry,  and  that  speculators  and 
bankers  were  the  drones  of  the  hive. 

Another  objection  was  that  the  circulation  of  bank  paper 
drive  the  real  money,  the  specie  from  the  country.  Mr.  H. 
could  recollect  the  time  when  in  this  Territory  change 
could  hardly  be  obtained  for  a  one  dollar  bill,  the  specie 
had  been  driven  from  circulation  by  the  worthless  rags  of 
Michigan  and  other  States;  instead  of  the  substance  we  had 
but  the  shadow  in  the  place  of  gold  and  silver  we  had  but 
"promises  to  pay."  The  people  of  this  country  had 
already  suffered  too  severely  by  paper  money,  they  had 
learned  a  serious  lesson  in  infancy  which  he  hoped  would 
not  be  forgotten  in  manhood. — When  gold  and  silver  were 
the  circulating  medium  the  people  were  not  visited  with 
fluctuations  of  trade  and  commerce.  If  that  principle  was 
established  in  the  constitution  of  this  State,  it  would  be 
carrying  out  one  of  the  great  fundamental  rules  of  the  dem- 
ocracy of  our  country. 

We  ought,  said  Mr.  H.,  to  exclude  banking  corporations 


Fragments  from  The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter.      203 

entirely  from  the  State — say  in  our  Constitution  that  they 
shall  have  no  existence  here,  and  such  he  hoped,  would  be 
the  determination  of  the  convention. 

— Reprinted  from  The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter,  Vol.  IV,, 
No.  5,  March  8th,  1845. 


In  making  the  motion  to  mdefinitely  postpone  the  minor- 
ity report  [Committee  on  Incorporations],  the  Doct  [Lowe] 
distinctly  stated  the  object  which  he  had  in  view  by  so 
doing. 

He  said  he  would  move  the  indefinite  postponement  of 
the  report  of  the  majority  committee  for  the  purpose  of 
moving  the  adoption  of  the  report  of  the  minority.  He 
said  the  Convention  had  labored  for  nearly  two  days,  en- 
deavoring to  adopt  some  restrictions  which  would  render  it 
safe  and  proper  to  allow,  in  this  Constitution,  for  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  bank. — This  effort  on  the  part  of  the  Conven- 
tion has  entirely  failed,  and  instead  of  an  agreement  of 
opinion  as  to  what  would  render  such  an  institution  safe 
and  harmless  to  the  community,  we  have  had  amendment 
upon  amendment,  and  an  expression  of  opinion  upon  this 
subject,  so  various,  that  there  is  great  danger  after  all,  that 
we  may  not  accomplish  our  object.  He  said  he  had  sup- 
ported the  majority  report,  which  provided  that  a  state 
bank  may  be  estabhshed  with  restrictions;  this  he  did  in 
accordance  with  a  promise  made  to  some  of  the  people  of 
his  county,  but  he  was  himself  a  hard  money  man  without 
qualification;  about  this  there  could  be  no  caviling,  it  was  a 
circulating  medium  that  needed  no  restrictions,  it  could  not 
defraud,  it  was  plain  and  comprehensible,  there  was  no 
complicated  machinery  about  it  which  might  get  out  of 
gear,  it  was  something  reliable  at  all  times  and  under  all 
circumstances.     And  as  he  had  but  httle  hope  that  the  Con- 


204  Convention  of  18^4. 

vention  would  be  able  to  agree  upon  such  restrictions  as 
would  make  a  bank  safe,  he  would  now  go  for  adopting 
the  hard  money  report,  to  prevent  banks  altogether. 

It  is  not  contended  by  any  one  that  it  would  be  necessary 
to  have  a  bank  for  a  series  of  years,  and  this  being  the  fact, 
and  the  Constitution  being  alterable  every  six  years,  the 
people  can,  without  expense  to  themselves,  change  it  so 
as  to  admit  of  a  bank  before  it  is  needed. 

— Reprinted  from  The  loiva  Capital  Reporte7',  Vol.  III., 
No.  42^  Oct.  26th,  184.4.. 


II. 

PRESS    COMMENTS 

AND 

OTHER  MATERIALS 

RELATIVE    TO 

THE  CONSTITUTION  OF  1844 


CONVENTION. 

We  are  gratified  to  state  that  the  Territorial  Agent  is 
actively  engaged  in  preparing  accommodations  for  the 
Convention  to  form  a  Constitution,  appointed  to  assemble 
on  Monday  week.  The  Southern  room  of  the  2d  floor  of 
the  Capitol  has  been  plastered,  &c.,  and  the  necessary 
furniture  is  either  procured  or  in  preparation.  A  carpet 
the  Convention  will  probably  have  to  dispense  with,  as  there 
are  no  available  funds  with  which  to  purchase  one,  and 
credit  cannot  be  procured.  We  presume,  however,  the 
character  of  the  Constitution  will  not  suffer  from  this 
deficiency. 

The  law  authorising  a  Convention  makes  it  the  duty  of 
the  Secretary  to  prepare  a  room,  &c.,  for  the  use  of  the 
Convention;  but  nothing  has  been  done  by  that  officer. 
The  Agent  visited  him  at  Burlington,  upon  that  subject, 
but  could  procure  no  aid,  beyond  the  furnishing  of  a  small 
quantity  of  stationery. 

Reprinted  from  The  Iowa  Standard^  Vol.  IV.,  JVo.  jp, 
Seft.  22,  1844. 


WE  ARE  SUSTAINED. 

It  is  well  known  that  we  opposed  the  election  of  Ex- 
Governor  Lucas  as  a  member  of  the  Convention,  upon  the 
ground  of  his  want  of  legal  residence.  Party  spirit  pre- 
vailed, however,  and  he  was  elected.  His  selection  for  the 
Presidency  of  the  body  was  considered  almost  certain. 
But  a  candid  view  of  the  subject  resulted  in  his  rejection, 
and  a  man  of  little  more  than  half  his  years  has  been  chosen. 


208  Constitution  of  184^. 

We  have  not  the  slightest  doubt  that  had  Governor  Lucas 
been  free  from  the  reproach  of  his  late  office-seeking  at- 
tempt in  Ohio,  he  would  now  have  been  President  of  the 
Convention.  While  his  friends  in  the  Convention  were 
willing  to  sustain  him  in  his  seat  in  case  of  contest,  they 
were  entirely  unwilling  so  far  to  forget  what  was  due  to 
the  dignity  of  the  body,  as  to  elevate  him  to  the  chair. 

— Reprinted  from  The  Iowa  Standard,  Vol.  IV.,  JVo.  41, 
Oct.  10,  1844. 

THE  CONSTITUTION. 

We  lay  before  our  readers  this  week,  in  extenso,  the 
Constitution  adopted  by  the  Convention,  assembled  for  that 
purpose,  and  which  is  now  placed  before  the  people,  to  be 
by  them  adopted  or  rejected.  What  will  be  its  fate,  we 
shall  not  attempt  to  predict.  Nor  shall  we  at  this  time 
canvass  at  length  its  merits  and  its  faults.  We  shall  deem 
it  our  duty,  as  it  is  our  privilege,  to  fully  express  our 
opinions  concerning  every  point  of  importance  involved  in 
the  instrument;  but  we  defer  that  expression  to  a  more 
convenient  season.  We  will,  however,  say,  that  while  it 
embraces  a  great  deal  that  is  good  and  proper,  (and  it 
would  be  indeed  strange  if  a  document  so  long  contained 
nothing  to  be  approved,)  it  involves  so  much  that  is  truly 
objectionable,  that  it  cannot  receive  our  individual  support. 
The  Constitution  is  a  whole,  and  as  such  must  be  accepted 
or  rejected.  The  process  of  amendment  is  too  tedious  and 
too  uncertain  to  make  it  wise  to  look  to  that  as  a  means 
of  remedying  essential  defects.  For  these  reasons,  we  can 
see  no  alternative  for  those,  who,  like  ourselves,  look  upon 
it  as  striking,  in  various  particulars,  alike  at  the  form  of 
Republican  Government,  the  purity  and  wholesomeness  of 
judicial  tribunals,  and  the  just  rights  of  the  individual  citi- 
zen, but  to  cast  their  vote  against  it. 


Press  Comments  Relative  to  the  Constitution.       209 

We  object  to  the  proposed  Constitution,  first,  that  it 
mingles  unwisely,  and  in  opposition  to  reason,  the  Legisla- 
tive, Popular,  and  Executive  powder.  It  makes  the  Legisla- 
ture, instead  of  a  body  to  enact  laws,  a  body  to  frofose 
laws.  It  makes  the  Governor,  instead  of  an  officer  to  ex- 
ecute laws,  a  judicial  functionary,  charged  to  sit  in  judg- 
ment upon  their  expediency.  It  grants  to  a  power  that  is 
expressly  made  incompetent  to  create  a  law,  full  and  plen- 
ary power  to  declare  it  abolished  and  destroyed. 

We  object  to  the  proposed  Constitution,  secondly,  that 
it  casts  unwisely  and  gratuitously  into  the  immediate  arena 
of  party  conflict,  the  selections  of  persons  to  adjudge  the 
legal  rights  of  the  community. 

We  object,  thirdly,  that  it  breaks  down  and  makes  a  nul- 
lity of  the  sanatory  rules  of  Courts  of  Justice,  in  respect  of 
witnesses — in  that  it  permits  those  to  testify  who  lack  the 
natural  and  necessary  predicate  of  faith  and  truth;  that  it 
admits  them  virtually  without  that  qualification  which  is  con- 
tinued as  necessary  to  the  remainder  of  community;  and 
that  it  permits  no  appeal  to  the  jury  to  take  cognizance  of 
the  difference  in  the  two  classes  of  testimony. 

We  object  to  the  proposed  Constitution,  fourthly,  that  it 
in  effect  destroys  the  right  (by  destroying  the  security,)  of 
community  to  associate  for  the  advancement  of  their 
neighborhood  interests.  It  burthens  all  charters  designed 
to  combine  labor  and  capital  for  the  effectuation  of  im- 
provements, with  conditions  that  no  sane  individual  will 
assent  to.  At  the  same  time  that  it  leaves  individual 
capital  and  individual  effort  free  to  do  its  utmost  to  harass 
or  plunder  the  public,  it  takes  away  from  the  public  the 
power  and  the  privilege  of  combining  for  their  mutual 
defence. 

We  object,  fifthly,  that  it  infringes  an  unquestionable 
law  of  social  and  political  equity,  in  that  it  permits  one 
party  to  a  conventional  arrangement  to  put  an  end  to  the 


210  Constitution  of  184/f.. 

contract  at  his  pleasure,  and  in  defiance  of  the  will  and  the 
rights  of  the  other. 

We  object,  sixthly,  that  such  officers  as  Secretary  of 
State,  Auditor  of  State,  and  State  Treasurer,  are  made 
elective  by  the  people,  when,  from  the  nature  of  the  quali- 
fications required,  and  of  the  duties  to  be  performed,  those 
officers  should  clearly  be  selected  by  the  Executive  head 
of  the  Government. 

We  object,  seventhly,  that  many  of  the  salaries  proposed 
to  be  given,  are  such  that,  ordinarily,  only  men  of  inferior 
qualifications  can  be  found  to  accept  the  offices. 

There  are  minor  objections,  that  we  shall  notice  hereafter. 

Those  objections  which  we  have  already  referred  to,  if 
sound,  are  certainly  sufficient  to  stamp  the  proposed  Con- 
stitution with  disfavor  in  the  eyes  of  all  impartial  men. 
They  are  objections  which  the  power  of  amendment  can- 
not reach;  and  with  us,  they  are  fatal  to  the  instrument 
itself. 

— Reprinted  from  The  Iowa  Standard^  Vol.  IV.,  No.  46, 
November  14,  1844. 

OPINIONS  OF  THE  PRESS  AT  LARGE. 

We  have  before  us  the  opinions  of  nearly  the  whole  body 
of  the  Press  of  the  Territory,  concerning  the  proposed 
Constitution.  For  the  benefit  of  our  readers,  we  will 
collate  them. 

The  Reporter,  of  this  city,  says:  "  It  contains  many  things 
to  approve,  and  in  some  things  there  may  be  trifling  mat- 
ters to  condemn."  The  Reporter  then  objects  to  the 
Lieutenant  Governor  being  allowed  to  mingle  in  the  debates 
of  the  Senate;  it  also  thinks  "the  propriety  of  allowing  the 
casting  vote  to  the  Lieut.  Governor  is,  at  best,  problemat- 
ical." <'In  regard  to  the  biennial  sessions  of  the  Legisla- 
ture," the  Reporter  says,  "we  are  no  believer  in  the  maxim. 


Press  Coimnents  Relative  to  the  Constitution.       211 

Our  creed  is  a  short  session  once  in  each  year."  That 
portion  relating  to  Incorporations  it  unqualifiedly  approves. 
In  reference  to  the  Judiciary,  it  remarks,  "  the  organization 
of  the  Courts  meets  our  entire  approbation."  It  also  de- 
clares a  preference  for  electing  District  Judges  by  the 
people,  rather  than  by  the  Legislature;  but  intimates  that 
appointments  by  the  Executive,  subject  to  approval  by  the 
Senate,  it  considers  best  of  all.  It  concludes — "  With  these 
views  we  are  determined  to  give  it  our  decided  support, 
and  wish  to  see  its  unanimous  adoption  by  the  people." 

The  Dubuque  Transcript  makes  particular  objection  to 
the  election  of  Judges  by  the  people,  and  also  to  the  pro- 
visions upon  the  subject  of  incorporations.  The  former 
alone,  it  thinks,  is  sufficient  to  condemn  it.  The  Transcript 
also  takes  exception  to  the  Convention  having  transmitted 
the  Constitution  directly  to  Congress,  asking  admission  as 
a  State,  before  it  was  submitted  to  the  people. 

The  Davenport  Gazette  states  that  it  used  its  "influence 
to  facilitate  the  admission  of  Iowa  into  the  Union,  with  the 
intention  of  supporting  the  above  instrument  [Constitution,] 
even  at  the  sacrifice  of  some  of  our  cherished  principles." 
It  then  goes  on  to  take  special  exception  to  the  provisions 
upon  the  subject  of  corporations,  and  says;  "We  cannot 
then,  from  the  train  of  disastrous  consequences  that  must 
flow  from  the  incorporation  of  such  an  article  into  the  Con- 
stitution, we  cannot  give  our  vote  for  it." 

The  Bloomington  Herald  approves  the  provision  con- 
cerning libel;  but  thinks  the  provisions  against  excessive  bail 
are  not  sufficient.     Concerning  salaries,  the  Herald  says : 

"The  salaries  of  all  the  State  officers  are, as  we  conceive, 
too  small  by  seventy-five  per  cent,  at  least,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  the  Judges,  and  theirs  is  too  small  by  at  lea§t  one 


212  Constitution  of  1844.. 

hundred  per  cent.  What,  let  us  enquire,  will  be  the  prob- 
able result  of  a  government  like  this?  We  shall  venture 
the  prediction  that  if  the  constitution  be  accepted  both  by 
the  people  and  by  Congress,  five  years  from  the  date  of 
our  admission  will  find  our  offices  filled  with  men  totally 
unfit  and  unworthy  the  station  they  occupy!  We  are  not 
led  to  this  supposition  from  a  lack  of  confidence  in  the 
judgment  of  the  people  to  select  worthy  officers  for  the 
various  stations,  or  the  lack  of  good  materials  from  which 
to  select,  but  from  the  fact  that  worthy  and  competent  men 
will  not  consent  to  perform  the  duties  of  the  various  offices 
for  the  poor  pittance  allowed  them  by  the  constitution. 
We  know  that  the  cry  of  '  Economy'  is  a  favorite  one  with 
demagogues,  who  seek  to  make  capital  for  future  elections, 
and  popular  with  those  who  prefer  living  under  a  bad  gov- 
ernment rather  than  a  good  one,  if  the  latter  dips  a  penny 
or  two  deeper  in  the  purse;  but  as  we  have  no  political 
favors  to  ask,  no  blinded  constituents  to  satisfy,  we  can 
boldly  assert  that  we  want  a  government  founded  on  no 
such  parsimonious  principles." 

The  Herald  concludes  its  remarks  by  saying:  -'It  [the 
proposed  Constitution,]  has  too  many  faults  to  be  summed 
up  in  one  sheet;"  and  does  not  inform  us  whether  it  means 
to  support  it  or  not. 

The  Hawkeye  says — "  With  many  exceedingly  good 
points,  it  has  others  so  radically  wrong  both  in  principle 
and  operation,  that  like  the  scorbutic  taint  in  the  human 
system,  it  infects  and  vitiates  the  whole  scope  of  its  provi- 
sions." "  The  proviso  for  amendments,"  the  Hawkeye 
continues,  "never  should  be  an  apology  for  adopting  a 
defective  system,  on  which,  with  its  approval,  the  work  of 
repairs  and  betterments  should  immediately  commence." 
It  first  objects  to  the  plan  of  the  draft,  as  combining  improp- 
erly constitutional  and  legislative  provisions;  it  objects  to 


Press  Comments  Relative  to  the  Constitution.       213 

the  admission  of  Atheists  to  testify;  it  opposes  "  the  schedule 
of  salaries  as  niggardly  and  insufficient;"  it  objects  to  the 
Lieut.  Governor's  mixing  in  the  debates  of  the  Senate;  it 
sets  its  "face  uncompromisingly  against  the  whole  construc- 
tion of  the  Judiciary,"  including  the  election  of  Judges  by 
the  people;  it  denounces  "  the  Corporation  restrictions  as 
most  dangerous  precedents  of  innovation  upon  the  reserved 
rights  of  the  people,  and  as  aiming  at  our  prosperity  as  a 
State."  The  Hawkeye,  we  presume,  will  oppose  the  adop- 
tion of  the  instrument,  although  it  does  not  say  so  in  explicit 
terms. 

The  Territorial  Gazette  [whose  Editor  was  one  of  the 
Delegates,]  says — "This  Constitution  will  commend  itself  to 
the  approbation  of  the  people,  and  will  be  sustained  by 
them,  by  an  overwhelming  vote,  at  the  ballot  box  in  April 
next.  We  have  seen  and  heard  enough  to  enable  us  to  say 
this  with  the  most  entire  confidence.  Attacked  it  may  be, 
and  has  been,  but  it  cannot  be  overthrown.  A  party  vote 
cannot  be  got  against  it,  and  those  who  are  already  striving 
to  effect  such  a  result  may  as  well  cease  their  pigmy  efforts. 
Whigs  as  well  as  democrats  approve  of  its  main  features, 
and  will  vote  to  sustain  it.  Indeed,  there  will  be  no  organ- 
ized opposition  to  its  adoption."  [This  is  of  course  very 
modest  coming  from  a  member  of  the  Convention,  and 
directed  to  the  people,  who  are  to  sit  upon  the  character  of 
his  acts,  as  embodied  in  the  Constitution.  But  the  language 
is  easily  accounted  for,  when  it  is  considered  that  the 
Gazette  acts  as  Whipper-in  of  the  other  Locofoco  prints, 
some  of  which  have  already  manifested  a  very  doubtful  dis- 
position upon  the  subject.] 

The  Lee  County  Democrat  says — "  We  have  the  Con- 
stitution before  us,  and  from  the  cursory  glance  we  have 
given  it,  our  opinion  is,  that  with  some  slight  modifications, 


214  Co7istitution  of  18^4. 

it  is  such  a  one,  as  should  meet  the  approbation  of  the  citi- 
zens of  Iowa." 

— Reprinted  from  The  Iowa  Standard,  Vol.  IV.,  No.  46, 
November  14,  1844. 

ITS  STYLE. 

If  the  proposed  Constitution  is  to  be  adopted  as  the  fun- 
damental law  of  the  State  of  Iowa,  we  regret  that  greater 
attention  was  not  paid  to  propriety  and  accuracy  of  style, 
as  well  as  to  consistency  of  provision.  Much  of  the  matter 
of  the  instrument  is  expressed  in  very  confused  and  bung- 
ling language,  and  in  some  instances  we  remark  that  the 
intention  is  rendered  almost  or  quite  doubtful.  In  one 
place  it  is  provided  that  "  in  all  elections  by  the  General 
Assembly  the  members  thereof  shall  vote  viva  vocef  and 
in  another  we  find  that  in  case  of  the  people  failing  to  elect 
a  Governor  or  Lieut.  Governor,  "  The  Legislature  shall,  by 
joint  ballot,  choose,"  &c.  "  The  General  Assembly,"  &c.,  is 
designated  as  the  title  of  the  law-making  body;  and  yet  we 
find  "Legislature  "  and  "Legislative  Assembly"  occurring 
at  frequent  intervals  in  various  parts  of  the  instrument,  and 
sometimes  in  the  very  same  section  with  the  proper  title. 

— Reprinted  from  The  Iowa  Standard,  Vol.  IV.,  No.  46, 
November  14,  1844. 

THE  CONSTITUTION. 

We  dislike  to  find  fault — it  is  a  thing  that  we  are  consti- 
tutionally indisposed  to;  and  that  must  be  our  excuse  to  our 
readers  for  delaying  so  long  a  full  expression  of  our  views 
in  opposition  to  the  many  objectionable  features  of  the 
proposed  Constitution.  We  have  stated  the  leading  par- 
ticulars in  which  we  object  to  it.  Our  reasons  we  intend 
to  give  between  this  time  and  the  first  of  April. 

We  will  at  this  time  let  our  readers  see  what  are  some 


Press  Comments  Relative  to  the  Constitution.       215 

of  the  objections  raised  by  others — for,  we  will  here  remark, 
it  is  in  reality  a  much  more  important  part  of  an  editor's 
duty  to  exhibit  the  opinions  of  others  than  to  express  his 
own. 

In  an  article,  some  weeks  back,  wherein  was  noted  the 
opinions  expressed  by  the  different  presses  of  the  Territory, 
in  reference  to  the  proposed  Constitution,  the  Dubuque 
Express  (Locofoco,)  was  omitted — it  not  having  come  to 
hand.  We  now  take  from  that  paper  of  the  2 2d  ult.  the 
substance  of  an  article,  replying  to  the  Burlington  Gazette 
— which  latter,  it  will  be  recollected,  supports  the  proposed 
Constitution.     The  Express  says: 

"We  differ  very  greatly  from  the  Gazette — both  as  re- 
gards the  expediency  of  a  State  Government,  and  the 
salaries  of  state  officers.  We  voted  against  a  Convention, 
because,  upon  mature  reflection,  we  esteemed  that  it  was 
bad  policy  to  cut  loose  from  the  Government  under  circum- 
stances so  peculiar  as  present  *  *  «  *  ■\ye  were 
opposed  to  the  assembling  of  a  Convention,  because  we 
believed  sincerely  that  it  was  a  wrong  step — impolitic — un- 
wise, and  might  be  attended  by  the  most  disagreeable 
consequences.  We  have  frequently  asked  some  of  the 
most  prominent  advocates  of  this  important  measure,  the 
question — What  benefits  will  accrue  to  the  people  of  Iowa 
by  assuming  a  State  Government,  and  incurring  the  ex- 
penses necessary  to  carry  on  the  same  ?  The  reply, 
almost  invariably,  is  something  like  this: — O,  sir,  consider 
the  glory — the  grandeur — the  sublimity  of  an  out-and-out 
State  Sovereignty!!!!! — the  inexpressible  pleasure  of  choos- 
ing our  own  rulers!!! — only  think,  sir,  of  that; — and  more 
than  that,  sir,  consider  that  we  are  to  receive  from  '  papa ' 
also.  Five  Hundred  Thousand  Acres  of  choice  Land!!! — 
only  think  of  that,  sir!  'Pun  honor,  sir,  there  is  nothing 
like  being  free  and  independent.  We  don't  measure  our 
patriotism  by  dollars  and  cents, — not  we  ? 


2i6  Constitution  of  1844. 

Such  was  in  substance,  the  answer  we  usually  received 
to  our  interrogatory. — Now,  here  is  the  side  of  the  picture 
upon  which  we  look,  and  by  which  we  were  influenced  to 
vote  against  the  assembling  of  a  Convention.  It  is  known 
to  all,  we  presume,  that  the  expenses  of  our  Territorial 
Government  are  defrayed  by  the  United  States — our  Gov- 
ernor, Secretary  of  State,  Judges,  Legislators  and  our 
courts  of  justice  cost  us  nothing — the  parent  government 
pays  them  all.  Is  this  not  an  item  worthy  of  the  laboring 
man's  consideration  ?  The  introduction  of  nearly  $100,- 
000  annually  into  our  Territory  by  the  U.  S. — being  about 
$1  for  every  man,  woman,  and  child  in  the  country — should 
not  be  hastily  thrown  aside;  but  on  the  contrary,  should  be 
allowed  to  flow  in  as  long  as  possible.  We  complain  that 
our  taxes  are  already  heavy  and  almost  unbearable.  Will 
this  taxation  become  lighter  by  drawing  on  the  robes  of 
State  sovereignty?  Common  sense  forbids  us  to  suppose 
that  it  will.  But  will  not  those  expenses  be  greatly  in- 
creased by  the  contemplated  assumption  of  sovereign  power? 
Undoubtedly  they  will — and  that,  too,  without  any  means, 
apart  from  what  we  now  possess,  to  meet  them.  We  have, 
so  far,  lived  happy  and  contented  under  the  parent  govern- 
ment— every  want  necessary  to  our  well-being  and  good 
government  as  a  Territory  has  been  supplied  b}'  a  kind 
and  parental  hand;  if  danger  approaches,  we  have  nothing 
to  fear,  because  the  same  potent  arm  that  protects  us  in 
peace,  will  protect  us  in  war.  As  to  the  bonus  of  500,000 
acres  of  land — that,  we  suspect,  will  be  given  whether  we 
become  a  State  in  ten  or  twenty  years  hence; — there  is,  we 
believe,  an  express  provision  for  that.  But  the  idea  which 
seems  to  dazzle  most,  and  which  seems  to  have  completely 
obscured  the  vision  of  our  brother  of  the  Gazette,  is  the 
fact,  that  we  will  have  a  voice  in  the  councils  of  the  nation, 
and  shall  thereby  acquire  character  and  dignity. — But  he 
does  not  attempt  to  conceal  the  fact,  that  some  twenty  or 


Press  Comments  Relative  to  the  Constitution.       217 

thirty  thousand  dollars  will  be  added  to  our  expenses — 
which  are  already  heavy  enough,  as  every  one  can  testify. 
But  this,  we  suppose,  is  a  part  of  the  character  and  dignity 
which  is  to  crown  the  farce.  But  we  feel  very  certain  the 
editor  has  greatly  underestimated  the  cost  of  a  State  gov- 
ernment, and  instead  of  putting  it  at  $20,000,  we  believe 
that  $40,000  will  be  much  nearer  the  mark; — and  if  we 
may  add  to  this  the  amount  necessary  to  defray  the  ex- 
penses of  our  courts  of  justice,  (which  the  Gazette  has 
altogether  omitted  to  mention )  the  conviction  naturally 
forces  itself  upon  us,  that  the  expense  of  our  State  govern- 
ment will  fall  very  little,  if  anything,  short  of  $50,000. 
Now,  if  our  fellow-citizens  believe  that  they  can  pay  $50,- 
000  annually  without  inflicting  upon  themselves  serious 
injury,  they  will  of  course,  adopt  the  constitution;  but  if ,  on 
the  contrary,  the}''  conclude  that  it  is  better  to  receive  $80,- 
000  than  to  pay  out  $50,000  they  will  certainly  continue 
their  present  form  of  government. 

The  constitution,  though  a  ver}'^  good  one,  has  some 
objectionable  features.  In  the  first  place,  the  salaries  of 
officers  are  altogether  too  small — particularly  the  per  diem 
of  the  members  of  the  Legislature. — We  believe,  that  in 
order  to  procure  men  who  are  well  qualified  to  make  and 
administer  laws,  we  should  give  such  salaries  as  would 
ensure  them  a  good  and  comfortable  living  while  in  office. 
A  poor  man  cannot  go  to  the  legislature,  because  $2.00 
per  day  will  not  justify  him  in  leaving  his  domestic  affairs, 
and  spending  his  time  at  the  capital.  This  is  a  matter, 
however,  which  it  is  unnecessary  for  us  to  discuss,  as  every 
man  of  common  sense  cannot  fail  to  see  the  truth  of  what 
we  say.  The  Gazette,  we  perceive,  is  in  favor  of  a  State 
government;  and  really,  the  argument  which  he  uses  in 
support  of  his  views,  reminds  us  of  the  mode  by  which  the 
whigs  endeavor  to  justify  the  present  high  Tariff — they 
contend  that  the  heavier  an  article  is  taxed,  the  cheaper  it 


2i8  Constitution  of  iS^/f.. 

is  to  the  consumer.  Now,  the  people  of  Iowa  are,  so  far 
as  we  know,  contented  and  happy;  but  the  Gazette  inti- 
mates that  their  happiness  and  comfort  might  be  materially 
augmented  by  heavy  taxation.  Verily,  the  idea,  though 
not  exactly  original,  has  at  least  the  merit  of  being  Jtmny. 

The  editor  concludes  by  remarking,  that  "since  a  Con- 
vention has  been  held,  and  a  constitution  framed,  we  shall 
vote  for  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution;  nevertheless  we 
sincerely  beheve  it  to  be  at  war  with  our  best  interests." 

We  quote  the  following  from  the  Bloomington  Herald, 
the  remarks  of  that  paper,  previousl}'  given  having  termi- 
nated without  a  full  expression  of  the  course  that  it  intended 
to  pursue: 

"We,  this  week,  give  the  conclusion  of  the  Constitution, 
the  Ordinance  and  the  Memorial  adopted  by  the  Conven- 
tion. During  the  two  weeks  of  our  suspension,  we  have 
had  an  opportunity  of  learning  the  views  of  our  contem- 
poraries on  the  subject  but  have  been  unable  to  gather 
anything  to  shake  us  in  our  first  impression  that  admis- 
sion under  the  Constitution  would  be  a  curse  to  us  as  a 
people.  Many  good  and  true  Democrats  there  are  who 
differ  with  us  on  the  subject,  some  of  whom  say  that  inas- 
much as  it  is  the  offspring  of  a  Democratic  body,  we  should 
as  a  party,  sustain  it.  With  them  we  differ.  In  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Hon.  Levi  Woodbury  we  can  with  truth  say, 
'  we  go  where  Democratic  principles  go,  and  when  they 
disappear  we  mean  to  halt;' — and  conceiving  that  Demo- 
cratic principles  have  been  departed  from  in  the  formation 
of  the  Constitution,  we  have  called  a  halt,  so  far  as  it  is 
concerned,  and  shall  oppose  its  adoption,  let  demagogues 
of  our  party  say  what  they  may." 

— Reprinted fro^n  The  Iowa  Standard,  Vol.  IV.,  JVb.  50, 
Dec.  12,  18^. 


Press  Comments  Relative  to  the  Constitution.       219 

CONVENTION. 

On  Monday  last,  the  Convention  organized  temporarily, 
by  the  choice  of  R.  P.  Lowe,  Esq.,  of  Muscatine,  President 
pro  tern.  On  Tuesday,  Shepherd  Leffler,  Esq.,  of  Des 
Moines,  was  unanimously  elected  President,  George  S. 
Hampton,  Esq.,  of  Johnson,  was  elected  Sec't.,  and  Alex- 
ander Anderson  of  Dubuque  As't.  Secretary. 

The  Convention  seems  happily  constituted  for  the  pur- 
poses for  which  it  was  called  and  proceeds  in  the  business 
of  the  session  with  rare  diligence  and  dispatch. — There 
appears  to  be  a  general  disposition  to  avoid  all  useless  and 
unnecessary  expenses,  and  to  finish  the  business  of  the 
session  in  the  least  possible  time,  consistent  with  the  proper 
investigation  and  care.  From  the  demonstration  which  we 
have  already  witnessed,  we  believe  that  the  labor  of  a  very 
few  weeks  will  produce  an  excellent  Constitution.     *     * 

— Reprinted  from  The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter,  Vol.  HI., 
No.  ^o,  Oct.  12,  184.^. 


CONVENTION. 

The  Convention  progresses,  according  to  the  best  of  our 
understanding,  with  an  unusual  degree  of  vigor,  for  a  legis- 
lative and  deliberative  body.  The  work  of  framing  a  con- 
stitution is  far  advanced  and  in  a  short  time,  no  doubt,  the 
Convention  will  complete  its  labor. 

There  is  a  disposition  to  make  an  economical  govern- 
ment, and  in  some  respects  we  fear  the  State  will  be  the 
loser.  ****** 

— Reprinted  from  The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter,  Vol.  III., 
No.  41,  Oct.  ig,  1844. 


220  Constitution  of  i8/f.^. 

SESSIONS  OF  THE  LEGISLATURE. 

It  is  contemplated  by  some  members  of  the  convention 
to  restrict  sessions  of  the  Legislature  to  once  in  two  years, 
and  to  elect  an  executive  for  four  years. 

The  wisdom  of  this  measure  is  difficult  to  discover.  In 
the  first  place  four  years  is  decidedly  too  long  a  time  for 
the  people  to  divest  themselves  of  executive  authority 
without  a  renewed  choice  of  agents. — It  would  seem  more 
democratic  that  the  immediate  agents  of  the  people,  the 
legislative  bodies,  should  assemble  once  in  each  year  and 
be  restricted  to  a  short  session.  Occasions  for  legislation 
are  of  no  unfrequent  occurrence,  and  the  true  dictate  of 
wisdom  might  point  out  that  course,  which  would  keep  the 
government  most  immediately  in  the  hands  of  the  people, 
where  their  restraining  influence  could  be  felt,  as  the  surest 
safeguard  against  corruption.  In  a  word,  we  have  believed 
that  form  of  government  to  be  most  complete,  which 
brings  the  power  of  the  agent  before  the  scrutiny  of  the 
principal,  in  the  most  frequent  revolutions  consistent  with 
stability,  and  such  being  our  opinion,  we  would  as  a  private 
citizen,  approve  of  a  position  assembling  the  Legislature 
once  in  each  year,  prohibiting  a  long  session. 

— Reprinted  from  The  Iowa  Capital  Re-porter,  Vol.  III., 
No.  4.0,  Oct.  12,  184^/.. 

ABOLITIONISM. 

A  PETITION  was  presented  to  the  Convention  requesting 
a  constitutional  provision  which  would  secure  to  the  blacks 
resident  in  Iowa,  all  the  rights  and  privileges  of  citizenship. 

This  petition  was  referred  to  a  select  committee,  whose 
report  is  published  in  another  column.  It  might  have  been 
a  question,  whether  the  subject  was  worthy  a  discussion  or 
report,  but  as  this  has  produced  much  excitement  hereto- 
fore, no  doubt  a  judicious  measure  was  pursued. 


Press  Comments  Relative  to  the  Constitution.       221 

We  believe,  to  have  granted  the  subject  of  the  petition, 
would  not  have  elevated  the  blacks  in  the  least,  but  would 
have  reduced  the  Anglo  Saxon  race  to  a  bare  competition 
with  the  new  partners  in  the  government.  We  hope  that 
this  black  subject  will  now  rest  in  Iowa  forever. 

— Reprinted  from  The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter,  Vol.  III., 
No.  /fi,  Oct.  ig,  iSf/f. 


JUDICIAL  SYSTKM. 

We  publish  in  this  number  that  part  of  the  Constitution 
of  Iowa  which  relates  to  the  judiciary  department. 

In  relation  to  making  the  Supreme  court  independent  of 
the  District  court  organization,  we  think  that  the  people 
will  generally  approve  of  this  provision.  It  would  seem  to 
be  proper  in  case  of  writs  of  error  from  inferior  jurisdic- 
tion, that  the  same  judge  sitting  in  a  Supreme  court  should 
not  have  an  interest  to  sustain  a  decision,  made  by  himself, 
while  sitting  in  an  inferior  jurisdiction. 

In  regard  to  making  the  Supreme  judges'  election  by  the 
legislature  and  the  inferior  judges  by  the  people,  although 
it  is  a  departure  from  the  ancient  practice,  it  may  meet  the 
approbation  of  the  public. 

The  limitation  to  a  term  of  office  in  the  judicial  depart- 
ment we  think  a  decided  improvement  upon  ancient  usages. 

— Reprinted /rom  The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter,  Vol.  Ill, 
No.  4.2,  Oct.  26,  1844. 

CONSTITUTION. 

*  *  It  contains  many  things  to  approve,  and  in  some 
things,  there  may  be  trifling  matters  to  condemn.  It  is 
hardly  expected  that  a  perfect  instrument  could  at  once  be 
framed;  and  as  the  fundamental  law  is  always  subject  to  the 
control  and  amendment  of  the  people,  we  must  look  to  that 


222  Constitution  of  184.4. 

further  action  which  the  exigencies  of  the  times  and  exper- 
ience dictate,  for  that  gradual  advancement  which  civiUza- 
tion  and  moral  improvement  ensures. 

In  the  executive  division,  we  are  unable  to  discover  but 
one  defect.  We  see  no  reason  why  the  Lieut.  Governor 
should  be  permitted  to  interfere  in  any  manner  with  the 
sacred  character  of  debate  amongst  the  representatives  of 
the  people.  This  field  should  ever  be  sacred  from  the 
approach  of  executive  influence.  To  our  view,  it  savors  of 
the  regions  of  absurdity,  to  authorize  the  Lieut.  Governor 
to  participate  in  debate  and  withhold  from  him  the  right  of 
suffrage.  We  are  unacquainted  with  the  propriety  in  legis- 
lation which  authorizes  one  to  discuss,  and  another  to  deter- 
mine. Besides  the  reasons  which  we  have  given  against 
the  right  of  the  Lieut.  Governor  to  participate  in  debate, 
there  is  one  very  powerful  objection.  It  is  no  unreason- 
able supposition,  that  the  Lieut.  Governor  may,  upon  the 
legal  contingency,  become  elevated  to  the  executive  head. 
Reason  would  hardly  be  convinced,  that  one  fresh  from  the 
excitement,  warmth,  and  perhaps  rancor  of  debate,  would 
have  additional  qualifications  to  judiciously  weigh  and 
determine  an  important  matter  for  executive  approval, 
which  he  had  defended  or  opposed,  with  the  fierce  partisan 
warfare  of  debate. — The  propriety  of  allowing  the  casting 
vote  to  the  Lieut.  Governor,  in  the  constitution,  is  at  best, 
problematical.  The  idea  is  borrowed  from  the  constitution 
of  the  United  States,  where  the  Senate  must  always,  if  full, 
consist  of  an  equal  number  to  sustain  the  balance  of  the 
States,  is  copied  into  some  constitutions  where  the  Senate 
is  of  the  same  character;  but  under  our  constitution  the 
wisdom,  at  best  is  doubtful. 

In  regard  to  biennial  sessions  of  the  Legislature :  we  are 
no  believer  in  the  maxim.  Our  creed  is  a  short  session 
once  in  each  year.  So  far  as  our  experience  has  served  us, 
the  people  require  to  consult  by  their  representatives  for 


Press  Comments  Relative  to  the  Constitution.       223 

the  general  good,  as  often  as  we  propose;  and  their  interest 
seems  to  imperiously  demand  it. — That  biennial  sessions 
will  reduce  expense  we  do  not  believe,  and  must  be  per- 
mitted to  argue  that  it  will  be  the  means  of  increasing  it. 
If  we  are  not  mistaken  the  unusual  time  elapsing  from  one 
session  to  another  will  serve  but  a  pretext  to  prolong  a 
session  to  unnecessary  length,  and  experience  may  prove 
the  necessity  of  called  sessions  so  as  to  remove  the  evil. 

We  think  two  years  is  a  longer  interval  than  the  people 
should  divest  themselves  of  their  representative  authority, 
without  the  power  to  resume  it,  particularly  in  the  most 
numerous  branch.  An  election  for  two  years  in  the  Exec- 
utive and  Senate  is  well  enough,  and  perhaps,  the  best 
proposition;  but,  an  election  in  the  Senate  for  four  years, 
in  our  view,  is  decidedly  an  error.  We  have  one  general 
belief  and  opinion,  told  in  few  words.  The  people  should 
delegate  authority  sparingly,  resume  it,  and  invest  it  again 
in  the  most  frequent  intervals,  consistent  with  the  stability 
of  government.  The  sturdy  English  patriots  contended 
ages,  for  annual  sessions  of  Parliament  and  annual  elections; 
most  of  the  States  of  the  Union  have  adopted  the  annual 
system,  and  we  see  little  occasion  for  an  experiment. 

As  it  regards  the  judiciary,  the  organization  of  the 
Courts  meets  our  entire  approbation.  It  is  believed  a 
decided  improvement,  when  the  judiciary  is  not  numerous 
to  have  a  Supreme  Court  independent  of  the  District  or 
inferior  Court.  There  is  little  reason  in  referring  a  legal 
point  for  reconsideration  to  a  Supreme  judge  who  has 
already  determined  it  in  the  Court  below,  and  who  has  a 
pride  of  character  to  sustain  the  former  position. — The 
manner  of  appointing  judges,  experience  will  test.  We 
doubt  whether  the  representatives  of  the  people  are,  in 
general,  possessed  of  more  purity  and  uprightness  than 
their  constituents.  It  requires  no  spirit  of  prophecy  to  sup- 
pose that  circumstances  may  arise  before  a  legislative  body 


224  Constitution  of  18^4.. 

where  political  partisanship  and  a  few  private  considerations 
may  operate  upon  the  representative  will,  instead  of  a 
profound  discrimination  of  legal  ability  or  respect  for  the 
administration  of  the  law.  In  our  opinion  the  election  of 
District  judges  is  better  left  with  the  people  than  with  the 
legislature :  because,  if  the  ofhce  is  elective  at  all,  the  choice 
should  be  made  by  the  constituent  body  rather  than  by  the 
representative.  We  believe  in  an  executive  appointment 
of  the  superior  judiciary  officers,  and  in  an  election  of  the 
associate  judg»^s  (if  any)  by  the  people.  The  judges  of 
the  United  States  Court  are  appointed  by  the  President, 
confirmed  by  the  Senate,  and  see  no  probability  of  improv- 
ing upon  the  system.  Responsibility  can  be  fastend  upon 
an  executive  but  never  upon  a  legislative  body.  We  believe 
in  the  full  sovereignty  of  the  people,  but  when  they  have 
determined  the  structure  of  their  government  and  enacted 
the  laws,  a  vigorous  execution  requires  an  executive  head 
and  unity  of  administration. 

The  constitution  contains  many  sound  provisions  which 
will,  we  doubt  not,  exclude  most  of  the  prominent  curses 
which  have  overrun  the  new  States.  Amongst  these,  the 
limitation  upon  corporations  stands  first  and  foremost. 
These  soulless  monsters  have  tyrannized  enough;  and  we 
rejoice  that  Iowa,  in  the  outset,  has  bound  the  hydra  hand 
and  foot,  for  all  purposes  of  mischief,  and  left  its  friends,  if 
they  are  disposed  to  test  its  virtues  properly  restrained  by 
law,  an  ample  field  for  the  experiment. 

There  is  another  provision  which  is  calculated  to  restrain 
foul  combinations  and  intreagues,  and  is  one  of  the  most 
important  in  the  instrument.  We  mean  that  provision 
which  prohibits  associating  matters  in  the  same  legislative 
bill  which  have  no  necessary  connection.  In  future,  this 
will  defeat  the  whole  system  of  log-rolling,  and  leave  the 
purity  of  the  executive  veto  free  and  untrammelled. 

The  provision  in  relation  to  the  State  indebtedness,  can- 


Press  Comments  Relative  to  the  Constitution.       225 

not  be  spoken  of  in  too  high  terms;  and  we  see  in  this,  the 
first  serious  attempt  on  the  part  of  Iowa,  to  escape  that 
abyss  which  has  engulphed  many  of  our  sisters  in  the  con- 
federacy. 

To  the  immense  mass  of  merit  which  our  proposed  con- 
stitution possesses,  we  have  deemed  little  comment  neces- 
sary.— It  is  recommended  by  its  comprehensiveness  and 
brevity;  and  those  provisions  which  we  have  considered  as 
defective,  may  deceive  our  expectations,  and  answer  in  full, 
the  wishes  of  the  public. — If  there  are  errors,  they  are 
easily  amended,  and  the  constitution  as  it  is,  is  far  better 
than  a  necessity  to  exist  in  colonial  vassalage.  With  these 
views,  we  are  determined  to  give  it  our  decided  support, 
and  wish  to  see  its  unanimous  adoption  by  the  people. 

— Refrinted  from  The  Iowa  Cafital  Reporter ^  Vol.  III., 
No.  4J,  Nov.  p,  184.4. 

STATE  BOUNDARY. 

Should  Congress  approve,  (  as  no  doubt  they  will )  our 
proposed  boundary,  Iowa,  in  point  of  extent  and  richness 
of  territory  will  be  unequalled  by  any  State  in  the  Union. 
The  boundary  selected  by  the  Convention  is  the  most 
natural  which  can  be  devised;  and  gives  us  the  majestic 
Mississippi  for  an  entire  eastern  barrier,  and  carries  our 
empire  north  to  the  St.  Peters,  and  far  west  to  the  dark, 
rapid  waters  of  the  Missouri. 

— Reprinted  from  The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter,  Vol.  III., 
No.  4J,  Nov.  g,  1844. 

THE  CONSTITUTION. 

We  believe  that  this  instrument  meets  the  nearly  unani- 
mous support  of  the  territorial  press  of  both  political  parties 
— We  have  regretted  to  discover  the  unqualified  disappro- 
15 


226  Constitution  of  1844. 

bation  of  the  Bloomington  Herald.  The  grounds  of  this 
opposition,  as  yet,  we  are  at  a  loss  to  discover.  It  pro- 
nounces it  anti-democratic,  but  to  our  conviction  it  fails  to 
make  out  the  argument.  The  leading  democratic  journals 
throughout  the  country  express  a  different  opinion,  and 
eulogize  it  highly.  Among  others  the  Ohio  Statesman 
and  Indiana  State  Sentinel  have  published  it  entire  with 
high  encomiums  upon  its  merits,  pronouncing  it  superior  to 
any  in  the  confederacy,  and  the  Globe  has  spread  it  at 
length  in  its  columns. 

If  the  tendency  of  this  instrument  is  really  anti-demo- 
cratic, and  we  can  be  made  to  understand  it  in  that  light, 
we  will  oppose  it  with  all  our  energies.  One  objection 
advanced  by  the  Herald  is  the  extreme  low  salaries  pro- 
vided for  executive  and  judicial  officers.  We  cannot  con- 
ceive this  provision  to  have  any  poHtical  tendency  at  all, 
either  democratic  or  anti-democratic.  If  our  recollection 
serves  us,  another  objection  advanced  by  the  Herald  is  the 
proposed  election  of  judges  by  the  people :  this  provision 
surely  cannot  be  anti-democratic,  but  one  step  further  ad- 
vanced in  democracy  than  most  of  the  State  Constitutions 
have  ventured.  If  our  friend  of  the  Herald  will  take  the 
trouble  to  examine  the  Constitutions  of  the  States,  we  will 
venture  to  predict,  that,  he  will  become  satisfied  that  the 
Constitution  of  Iowa  is  by  far  the  most  democratic  of  all, 
and  very  little  anti-democratic  in  its  tendency.  If  we  un- 
derstand aright  the  grand  objection  made  by  the  Whigs  in 
the  Convention  to  its  principal  features,  was  that  it,  save  the 
executive  veto,  was  too  agrarian,  to  leveHing,  and  too  dem- 
ocratic for  corporation  monopolists,  and  other  despoilers  of 
public  wealth,  and  by  no  means  that  its  tendency  was  anti- 
democratic. 
*********** 

In  general  we  have  discovered  that  the  opposition  of  an 
individual  to  the  constitution  began  and  ended  in  an  oppo- 


Press  Comments  Relative  to  the  Constitution.       227 

sition  to  a  State  government  at  all.  Consequently  some 
find  fault  with  one  provision.  Some  v^ith  another,  until 
every  section  in  the  instrument  is  alternately  applauded  and 
condemned.  A  large  proportion  of  the  whig  party  are  intent 
to  keep  Iowa  out  of  the  Union,  so  that  her  two  Senators 
shall  not  ensure  the  vote  of  the  United  States  Senate  to 
Mr.  Polk  at  the  next  session :  and  the  friends  of  the  consti- 
tution may  rely,  that  these  whigs,  for  that  reason,  will  do 
their  utmost  to  prevent  its  adoption. 

— Reprinted  from  The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter,  Vol.  III., 
JVo.  47,  Dec.  28,  1844. 

THE  CONSTITUTION. 

To  our  article  of  last  week,  relative  to  our  proposed 
Constitution,  the  Standard  makes  serious  objections,  prin- 
cipally to  the  statement  made  by  us  that  it  met  "  nearly  the 
unanimous  support  of  the  press  of  both  pohtical  parties." 
By  this  statement  we  did  not  intend  to  be  understood  as 
saying,  that  the  conductors  of  the  different  papers  in  this 
Territory  gave  to  that  instrument  their  unqualified  support. 
The  most  of  them  like  ourselves,  have  some  unimportant 
objections  to  the  expediency  of  some  particular  provisions; 
but  the  great  and  cherished  principles  of  equal  rights  and 
equal  privileges  upon  which  it  is  based,  and  which  is  so 
liberally  extended  and  enforced,  has  met  not  only  the 
approbation  of  the  Territorial  press,  but  of  the  democratic 
press  throughout  the  Union.  We  do  not  regard  those 
papers  who  may  entertain  slight  objections,  based  upon 
expediency  and  not  upon  principle,  as  opposed  to  its  being 
the  supreme  law  of  Iowa.  They,  like  ourselves,  have 
frankly  avowed  their  objections,  and  as  frankly  given  to  its 
general  features,  as  far  as  principle  is  involved,  their  cor- 
dial support. 

— Reprinted  from  The  lozva  Capital  Reporter,  Vol.  III., 
No.  48,  fan.  4,  1845. 


228  Constitution  of  1844.. 

THE  CONSTITUTION. 

We  gather  the  impression  from  the  Hawkeye  of  last 
week,  that  it  founds  it  greatest  objection  to  the  Constitution 
upon  the  article  in  relation  to  corporations.         *         * 

— Reprinted  from  The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter,  Vol.  III., 
No.  52,  Feb.  /,  1845. 

CONGRESSIONAIv  BOUNDARY. 

It  seems  that  Congress  in  its  wisdom  has  made  a  material 
alteration  in  the  boundaries  of  Iowa  from  those  proposed 
by  the  Constitution.  From  the  amendment  as  it  finally 
passed  the  House,  which  appears  in  another  article,  it  is 
seen  that  the  question  of  boundaries,  as  it  regards  the 
adoption  of  the  constitution,  is  involved  in  doubt  and  ob- 
scurity, if  not  in  positive  contradiction. 

The  boundary  of  the  State  of  Iowa  is  a  matter  of  uni- 
versal concern,  of  great  importance,  and  well  worthy  serious 
deliberation.  The  one  proposed  by  the  convention  is 
undoubtedly  the  most  natural,  and  would  Congress  adopt 
it,  it  would  include  the  most  magnificent  if  not  the  largest 
State  in  the  Union.  This  is  the  boundary  which  we  would 
prefer,  but  then  the  question  arises  can  we  get  it?  Of  this 
we  have  ever  had  a  serious  doubt. 

There  is  a  question  connected  with  the  boundary  pro- 
posed by  the  convention  which  would  afford  a  very  proper 
subject  for  speculation.  Suppose  the  great  and  rich  vallies 
of  the  Mississippi  and  of  the  Missouri  inhabited  by  a  dense 
population,  and  the  comparatively  barren  country  that 
divided  the  waters  which  flow  into  each  sustaining  but  a 
sparse  population,  and  the  representatives  of  all  to  meet  in 
the  legislative  council,  would  not  a  Mississippi  and  a  Mis- 
souri interest  render  a  session  anything  but  harmonious, 
perhaps  positively  discordant?     Would  it  not  be  better  that 


Press  Comments  Relative  to  the  Constitution.       229 

a  State  should  be  formed  upon  the  Mississippi,  another 
upon  the  Missouri,  where  the  interests  of  each  would  be 
perfectly  within  its  own  control?  We  ask  these  questions 
merely  by  way  of  suggestion:  and  expect  to  profit  by  the 
wisdom  and  research  of  others. 
********** 

We  are  decidedly  in  favor  of  coming  into  the  Union  at 
all  events  and  under  the  present  constitution.  Afterwards, 
at  the  next  session.  Congress  may  increase  our  boundaries 
to  the  limits  prescribed  by  the  Constitution:  or  if  we  are 
unable  to  procure  such  favorable  action,  we  say  let  us  avail 
ourselves  of  the  benefit  of  the  Union  under  the  best  con- 
ditions we  are  able  to  obtain. 

— Rej)rinted/ro?n  The  Iowa  Capital  Re-porter,  Vol.  IV., 
No.  6,  March  15,  1845. 

CONSTITUTION  AND  BOUNDARY. 

*  *  *  As  it  regards  the  Congressional  boundary:  we 
are  of  the  opinion  that  a  general  acceptance,  in  contempla- 
tion of  law,  will  amount  to  an  acceptance  of  the  Congres- 
sional boundary.  However  it  cannot  be  disguised  that  the 
final  action  of  Congress  on  the  measure  partakes  some- 
what of  the  spirit  of  Iowa  legislation,  and  renders  any  ab- 
solute determination  upon  its  meaning  impossible. 

So  far  as  the  Congressional  boundary  relates  to  the 
future  development  of  the  State  of  Iowa,  it  is  really  a  very 
grave  question,  whether  it  is  not  a  more  satisfactory  bound- 
ary than  that  proposed  by  the  convention.  National  pride 
and  exaltation  might  dictate  to  us  a  large  extent  of  country, 
by  which  rule,  we  might  claim  to  the  shores  of  the  Pacific: 
but  as  a  separate  community,  amongst  ourselves,  would 
our  prosperity  advance  in  a  similar  proportion  ?  We  con- 
fess that  we  have  had  a  decided  partiality  for  the  boundary 


230  Constitution  of  1844. 

proposed  by  the  Convention;  but  subsequent  information 
has  convinced  us,  that  it  was  not  of  that  importance  which 
we  had  supposed.  We  have  since  learned  that  the  section 
of  country  around  the  head  waters  of  the  streams,  which 
flow  into  the  two  great  rivers^  is  at  best,  a  barren  waste 
and  unfit  for  settlement  or  cultivation.  Consequently  it 
becomes  a  matter  of  grave  consideration  whether  a  State 
wholly  in  the  valley  of  the  Mississippi  and  its  tributaries, 
does  not  possess  advantages  over  a  State  which  would 
stretch  from  river  to  river,  with  a  desert  prairie  in  its  heart. 
The  Congressional  boundary  as  nearly  as  can  be  with  a 
direct  line,  divides  the  waters  which  flow  eastward  to  the 
Mississippi  from  those  which  flow  westward  to  the  Mis- 
souri :  thus  obviating  the  difficulty  which  we  have  suggested. 

There  is  another  consideration  which  we  cannot  over- 
look. We  view  the  question  as  already  decided  by  the 
national  legislature,  "  that  we  cannot  obtain  an  additional 
foot  of  land."  If  this  is  really  so  we  gain  nothing  by 
delay,  and  the  sooner  we  enter  the  Union  the  better  for  us 
and  for  the  further  prosperity  of  our  State. — We  are  one 
of  those  who  believe  that  Congress  will  neither  be  coaxed 
nor  compelled  to  retract  a  step  it  has  once  taken,  and  that 
breath  spent  in  such  an  enterprise  is  but  labor  thrown 
away.  It  is  perceived  that  the  boundary  given  us  by  Con- 
gress is  that  proposed  by  the  Geologist  of  the  United 
States;  and  as  Congress  places  implicit  reliance  upon  the 
reports  and  suggestions  of  this  officer,  we  see  no  evidence 
of  a  disposition  to  listen  to  us. 

It  is  known  to  most  of  our  readers,  that  Florida,  so  far 
as  the  action  of  Congress  is  necessary  has  now  become  a 
State.  It  has  long  been  the  practice  to  admit  a  slave-hold- 
ing and  non-slaveholding  State  side  by  side,  and  if  we 
should  reject  the  present  Constitution,  refuse  to  come  into 
the  Union  at  this  time,  and  Wisconsin  should  apply  before 
we    are    finally  admitted,    perhaps,  we    might    remain    in 


Letter  of  Augustus  C.  Dodge.  i%l 

Colonial  servitude  longer  than  we  wish.  This  might  not 
be  a  desirable  condition,  inasmuch  as  Congress  has  not 
made  any  further  appropriation  for  our  legislative  expenses, 
and  probably  never  will. 

We  have  never  insisted  that  our  Constitution  was  perfect; 
but  we  insist,  that  it  possesses  every  essential  feature  of  a 
good  Republican  system  of  government,  and  we  have  no 
doubt  but  it  will  increase  the  happiness  and  prosperity  of 
the  people. 

There  are  some  provisions,  which,  hereafter,  may  require 
amendment,  but  to  reject  the  Constitution,  for  any  fancied 
defect,  would  be  an  act  of  positive  folly  or  something  worse. 
To  throw  the  expenses  of  another  Convention  and  another 
Constitution  upon  our  infant  resources  would  be  an  act,  at 
once,  unnecessary  and  suicidal. 

The  customary  avocations  of  the  writer  of  this  article 
has  prevented  him  from  giving  the  subject  the  considera- 
tion which  it  demands,  and  these  remarks,  hastily  written 
and  without  reflection,  will  hardly  appear  of  particular  im- 
portance. 

— Reprinted  from  The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter^  Vol.  IV., 
No.  8,  March  2^,  184.5. 

LETTER  OF  AUGUSTUS   C.  DODGE  TO   HIS 
CONSTITUENTS. 

Washington  City,  March  4,  1845. 
Fellow- Citizens :  The  bill  for  the  admission  of  Iowa  and 
Florida  into  the  Union  has  become  a  law.  Florida  is  now 
the  twenty-seventh  State  of  the  Union.  Her  admission  is 
complete.  So  far  as  Congressional  action  is  concerned, 
Iowa  is  a  sovereign  State.  It -remains,  however,  for  you, 
on  the  first  Monday  of  April  next,  to  consummate  her  sov- 
ereignty, and  say  whether  she  shall  take  her  place  as  the 
twenty-eighth  member  of  the  National  Confederacy. 


232  Constitution  of  184.4.. 

And  but  for  the  alterations  made  by  Congress  in  the 
boundaries  proposed  by  the  Convention  which  framed  the 
Constitution,  I  should  not  have  deemed  it  necessary  to 
briefly  address  you. 

In  the  act  of  our  admission,  the  northern  boundary  of 
Missouri  is  made  our  southern  line.  This  leaves  our  border 
dispute  with  Missouri  as  heretofore — Congress  esteeming 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  the  proper  tribunal 
to  decide  that  controversy.  The  western  and  northern 
lines  adopted  by  the  convention  have  also  been  changed  by 
Congress,  and  the  boundaries  contained  in  the  Constitution 
are  reduced.  Notwithstanding  this  alteration,  our  eastern 
line,  following  the  course  of  the  Mississippi,  is  three 
hundred  and  twenty-five  miles  in  length;  our  southern 
line,  due  west  from  Fort  Madison,  is  one  hundred  and  sixty- 
two  miles;  our  western  is  two  hundred  and  thirty-five 
miles;  our  northern,  one  hundred  and  thirty-four  miles;  and 
within  these  boundaries  are  contained  forty-four  thousand 
three  hundred  square  miles;  on  twenty-seven  three  hundred 
and  fifty-two  thousand  acres  of  the  most  fertile  land  in  the 
Union.  The  State  of  Iowa  according  to  the  boundaries 
proposed  by  Congress,  is  larger  than  the  States  of  New 
Hampshire,  Vermont,  Massachusetts,  R.  Island,  Connecti- 
cut, New  Jersey,  and  Delaware,  combined;  larger  than 
the  great  States  of  Pennsylvania,  Tennessee,  Kentucky, 
North  Carolina,  Indiana,  or  Ohio;  and  nearly  as  large  as  the 
Empire  State  of  New  York.  The  country  lying  immedi- 
ately on  the  Missouri  river;  and  of  which  Congress  have 
deprived  us,  is  said  to  be  fertile;  but  a  large  extent  of  land 
forming  the  dividing  ridge  of  the  waters  running  into  the 
Mississippi  and  Missouri  rivers,  called  the  *  Hills  of  the 
Prairie,'  and  which  has  also  been  excluded  from  our  new 
State,  is  barren  and  sterile.  The  State  of  Iowa  embraces 
within  its  boundaries  the  rivers  Des  Moines,  Skunk,  Iowa, 
Cedar,  Wabizipinikan,  Makoketa,  Turkey,  Upper  Iowa,  and 


Letter  of  Augustus  C.  Dodge.  233 

Hokak,  all  of  which  running  through  the  State,  furnish, 
together  with  their  innumerable  tributaries,  facilities  for 
navigation  and  manufactures  unequalled  by  the  rivers  of 
any  State  in  the  Union.  It  is  not  necessary  that  I  should 
here  remind  you  of  the  immense  mineral  wealth  or  un- 
equalled richness  of  the  soil  of  Iowa — they  have  become  a 
proverb,  and  their  fame  is  widespread.  In  a  word,  no 
State  surpasses  Iowa  in  natural  advantages. 

The  boundaries  adopted  by  Congress  were  those  sug- 
gested by  the  late  Mr.  Nicollett,  United  States  Geologist, 
and  who  had  accurately  and  scientifically  examined  the 
whole  country  lying  between  the  Mississippi  and  Missouri 
rivers.  In  connection  with  the  boundaries  of  five  new 
States,  to  be  formed  south  and  north  of  the  Missouri,  Mr. 
N.  says;  "According  to  this  division,  the  State  of  Iowa 
should  be  bounded  by  the  Mississippi  on  the  east,  by  a 
parallel  of  latitude  passing  through  the  mouth  of  the  Man- 
kato  or  Blue  Earth  river,  by  a  certain  meridian  line  run- 
ning between  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  degrees  of 
longitude  on  the  west,  and  by  the  northern  boundary 
of  Missouri  to  the  south.  It  would  give  to  the  State 
a  depot  on  the  St.  Peter's  river,  whilst  the  Des  Moines 
and  Iowa  rivers,  rurlning  through  its  more  central  south- 
ern parts,  would  make  the  whole  Territory,  excepting 
the  small  portion  drained  by  the  tributaries  of  the  St. 
Peter's  river,  assume  the  character  of  an  extended  valley, 
with  nearly  all  its  streams  flowing  in  one  general  direction, 
to  contribute  their  share  to  the  mighty  Mississippi.  As  the 
population  would  be  composed  of  emigrants  from  all  parts 
of  the  civilized  world,  by  not  extending  the  boundary  so  as 
to  estrange  one  portion  of  the  people  from  the  other,  on 
account  of  a  difference  of  origin  or  a  different  course  of 
trade,  they  would  be  brought  to  live  contentedly  under  the 
same  laws  and  usages;  whilst  the  uniform  direction  of  the 
waters,  together  with  the  similarity  of  climate,   soil,   re- 


234  Constitutioji  of  184.4.. 

sources,  and  avenues  to  market,  are  well  calculated  to  give 
to  the  inhabitants  of  this  State,  a  homogeneity  of  character 
and  interest  highly  conducive  to  their  well  being,  both 
morally  and  politically." 

Before  you  decide  the  important  question  presented  for 
your  consideration  on  the  first  Monday  of  April  next,  it  is 
due  to  you  that  I  should  state  by  what  influences  the 
boundaries  proposed  by  the  convention  were  reduced. 
This  was  effected  by  the  votes  of  the  members  of  both 
Houses  of  Congress,  from  the  North,  from  the  East,  and 
from  the  West,  irrespective  of  party  divisions.  The  amend- 
ment to  reduce  was  proposed  by  Mr.  Duncan,  (Democrat,) 
of  Ohio,  and  followed  by  Mr.  Vinton,  (Whig,)  who,  in  a 
most  lucid  and  cogent  manner,  represented  the  injury  which 
the  creation  of  large  States  would  inflict  in  a  political  point 
of  view  on  the  Western  country.  He  forcibly  exhibited 
the  great  wrong  done  the  West  in  times  past  by  Congress, 
in  dividing  out  its  territory  into  overgrown  States,  thereby 
enabling  the  Atlantic  portion  of  the  Union  to  retain  the 
supremacy  in  the  United  States  Senate.  He  showed  that 
it  was  the  true  interest  of  the  people  of  the  valley  of  the 
Mississippi,  that  the  new  States  should  be  of  reasonable 
dimensions;  and  he  appealed  to  Western  members  to  check 
that  legislation  which  had  heretofore  deprived  the  Western 
country  of  its  due  representation  in  the  Senate. — I  advert 
particularly  to  the  remarks  of  Mr.  Vinton,  because  their 
irresistible  force  was  admitted  by  all,  except  the  delegation 
from  the  South,  and  had  the  effect  of  procuring  the  adop- 
tion of  Duncan's  amendment,  reducing  the  boundaries  pro- 
posed by  the  convention. 

It  is  not  improper  that  I  should  advise  you  that,  during 
the  whole  of  the  discussion  relating  to  our  boundaries,  I 
deemed  it  my  duty,  as  your  representative,  to  endeavor  to 
sustain  those  contained  in  the  Constitution. 

The  House  of  Representatives  had,  a  few  days  preced- 


Press  Comments  Relative  to  the  Constitution.       235 

ing  the  discussion  referred  to,  passed  a  law  for  the  re-an- 
nexation of  Texas,  by  which  five  new  slave  States  may  be 
added  to  the  Union.  This  furnished  an  additional  reason 
why  my  protest  in  behalf  of  the  Convention  boundaries  was 
disregarded,  inasmuch  as  our  fellow-citizens  from  the  non- 
slaveholding  States  were  desirous,  by  moderate  divisions, 
of  the  remaining  free  territory  of  the  Union,  to  give  to  the 
free  States  a  counterbalancing  influence.  This  reason  is 
one  of  such  power,  added  to  others  to  which  I  have  alluded, 
that,  forming  my  opinion  from  extensive  inquiry  and  obser- 
vation, I  must  in  all  candor  inform  you  that,  whatever  your 
decision  on  the  first  Monday  of  April  next  may  be,  we  will 
not  be  able  hereafter  under  any  circumstances,  to  obtain 
one  square  mile  more  for  our  new  State  than  is  contained 
within  the  boundaries  adopted  by  the  act  of  Congress 
admitting  Iowa  into  the  Union. 

In  haste,  and  with  high  regard,  your  fellow-citizen, 

Augustus  C.  Dodge. 

— Refrinted  from  the  Iowa  Capital  Reporter,  Vol.  /J\, 
jYo.  8,  March  2g,  1845. 

DOCTORS  WII.I.  DISAGREE. 

The  Whig  Governor,  in  his  message,  attributes  the  rejec- 
tion of  the  constitution  to  the  conditions  imposed  by  Con- 
gress for  our  admission.  The  Standard,  the  mouthpiece  of 
the  party  in  this  City,  says  that  it  was  defeated  on  account 
of  its  own  defects.  The  Hawk  Eye  admitted,  before  the 
election,  that  if  the  constitution  should  be  defeated,  it  would 
be  attributed  to  the  conditions  of  Congress,  and  after  the 
election,  boasted  of  the  rejection  of  those  conditions.  The 
Dubuque  Transcript  occupied  the  same  position  as  the 
Hawk  Eye.  These  little  family  jars  must  be  very  dis- 
agreeable.— Settle  it  amongst  yourselves.  Gentlemen. 

— Reprinted  from  The  loiva  Capital  Reporter,  Vol.  IV., 
No.  14,  May  10,  184^. 


236  Constitution  of  184.4. 

FROM  THE  BALTIMORE  AMERICAN. 

The  law  of  Congress  providing  for  the  admission  of 
Iowa  into  the  Union  gives  some  dissatisfaction  to  the  people 
of  that  Territory,  because  it  makes  certain  alterations  in 
the  boundary  lines  as  proposed  by  the  territorial  author- 
ities. The  size  of  the  new  State  is  reduced  by  law  some- 
what from  the  original  dimensions.  Yet  Iowa,  as  now  con- 
stituted, is  capable  of  sustaining  fifteen  millions  of  inhabi- 
tants. 

The  people  of  the  West  are  accustomed  to  things  on  a 
gigantic  scale.  Their  rivers,  forests,  prairies,  cataracts  and 
caverns  are  of  the  sublime  order;  their  lakes  are  inland  seas; 
they  measure  pork  by  the  cord,  and  mass  meetings  by  the 
acre.  It  is  quite  natural,  therefore,  that  they  should  wish 
every  one  of  their  States  to  be  in  dimensions  an  empire. 

Iowa  is  a  giantess  in  swaddling  clothes;  she  uses  the 
cradle  in  which  Hercules  was  rocked.  The  Titan  who 
covered,  as  he  lay  extended,  nine  roods,  was  a  pigmy  to  her 
— less  than  a  Lilliputian  to  a  Gulliver.  Yet  is  she  disposed 
to  complain  that  she  is  stinted  of  her  fair  proportions.    *   * 

— Reprinted  from.  The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter^  Vol.  IV.  ^ 
No.  I  J,  May  j,  1845. 

THE   CONSTITUTION.— PRESENT  ASPECT   OF 
AFFAIRS. 

The  difference  in  the  vote,  for  and  against  the  Constitu- 
tution  will  be  very  small — probably  not  to  exceed  two  or 
three  hundred  either  way,  unless  the  western  and  northern 
counties,  not  heard  from,  prove  to  have  voted  very  differ- 
ently from  general  expectation.  While  the  result  is 
shrouded  in  the  mist  of  uncertainty,  whatever  it  may  prove 
to  be,  it  is  very  certain  that  the  vote  in  several  counties  is 
such  as  to  astound  the  friends  of  the  constitution  and  sur- 
prise everybody,  both  friend  and  foe. 


Press  Comments  Relative  to  the  Constitution.       237 

It  behooves  us,  therefore,  to  cast  about  and  inquire  into 
the  causes  that  have  conspired  to  bring  about  so  very  dif- 
ferent a  result  from  that  which  was  anticipated. — We  know 
that  the  leaders  and  wire-pullers  of  the  whig  party  were 
deadly  hostile  to  the  constitution  on  account  of  the  demo- 
cratic simphcity  of  its  features  and  purely  republican  pro- 
visions; and  that  if  it  lay  within  the  scope  of  possibility,  they 
were  determined  to  defeat  it.  But  they  were  greatly  in  the 
minority;  and  furthermore,  the  masses  of  that  party,  many 
of  whom  are  really  democratic  at  heart,  were  not  all  so 
blind  to  the  welfare  of  their  country,  nor  so  reckless  of  the 
momentous  consequences  that  hung  upon  the  issue,  as 
blindly  to  obey  the  behests  of  those  leaders  merely  for 
party  purposes.  In  short,  a  goodly  portion  of  them  were 
originally  desirous  of  coming  into  the  Union  with  that  con- 
stitution— if  not  approving  of  its  every  provision,  they  knew 
it  to  be  the  expressed  will,  through  their  representatives,  of 
a  large  majority  of  the  people,  and  were  content  to  abide 
by  it.  It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  mere  party  opposition, 
without  the  concurrence  of  extraneous  circumstances,  could 
not  have  accomplished  its  defeat.  But  those  very  circum- 
stances or  events,  which  alone  could  have  exerted  such  an 
influence,  did  transpire  and  that,  too,  in  the  only  manner 
and  order  of  sequence,  by  which  such  an  effect  could  pos- 
sibly have  been  produced. 

What,  then,  let  us  ask,  were  those  circumstances  that 
have  produced  such  a  sudden  revulsion  in  public  opinion  ? 
for  it  was  not  one  isolated  event  merely,  but  a  concatenation 
of  circumstances,  having  its  commencement  with  the  first 
step  that  was  taken  for  the  formation  of  a  State  govern- 
ment, and  ending  only  at  the  ballot  box  or  polls.  It  was 
not  merely  the  act  of  Congress  by  which  something  less 
than  half  of  the  Territory  of  our  proposed  State  was  cur- 
tailed. No;  the  first  link  in  the  chain,  was  the  misconcep- 
tion, on  the  part  of  the  people  and  their  delegates,  of  their 


238  Constitution  of  184^. 

real  position,  and  of  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of  accom- 
plishing the  desired  end. — It  was  not  anticipated  that 
Congress  would  deny  them  the  possession  of  any  contig- 
uous unoccupied  territory  which  they  might  wish  to  incor- 
porate in  their  State.  All  the  region  which  had  been 
generally  designated  as  low^a,  was  regarded  as  of  right 
belonging  to  the  State  of  Iowa,  when  the  people  chose  to 
become  a  State.  With  this  view%  not  for  a  moment  sup- 
posing any  part  would  be  denied  them,  they  included  in 
their  boundaries  a  region  of  country  extending  from  river 
to  river,  embracing  as  much  territory  as  the  great  Empire 
and  Key  Stone  States  combined.  Next,  forgetting  that 
great  haste  is  often  the  father  of  the  poorest  speed,  they 
determined  to  submit  their  constitution  to  Congress  before 
having  i-t  passed  upon  by  the  people.  Had  it  been  sub- 
mitted to  the  people  first,  and  then  to  Congress,  whatever 
amendments  or  conditions  had  been  made  to  it  by  the 
latter,  would  have  been  acted  upon  by  the  former  separ- 
ately, and  with  time  for  reflection  and  due  deliberation. 
But  it  was  submitted  to  Congress,  and  the  time  was  tixed 
early  in  the  spring  succeeding,  at  which  the  people  were 
to  vote  upon  it.  From  this  time  forth,  the  great  body  of 
the  people,  came  habitually  as  it  were,  to  regard  the  whole 
of  this  territory  as  their  right,  and  never  dreamed  of  its 
curtailment.  Neither  was  the  question  ever  taken  into  con- 
sideration, except  it  may  be  in  a  very  few  instances,  as  to 
whether  they  were  any  better,  or  as  well  off,  with  the 
whole,  as  with  the  half.  Very  little  was  known  at  home 
respecting  the  progress  of  their  application  in  Congress; 
and  in  fact  it  elicited  very  little,  if  any  debate.  It  went 
through  the  appropriate  committees  of  the  two  houses  with- 
out any  alteration  to  the  proposed  boundaries;  and  public 
opinion  settled  down  that  it  would  be  admitted,  together 
with  Florida,  and  that  on  the  first  Monday  in  April,  the 
people  would   be  called   upon  to  vote,  merely  upon  the 


Press  Comments  Relative  to  the  Constitution.       239 

adoption  of  the  Constitution,  with  perhaps  a  few  unimpor- 
tant amendments.  The  bill  admitting  the  State  was  passed 
about  one  month  previous  to  the  day  on  which  it  was  to 
come  back  to  the  people,  in  a  sparsely  settled  country, 
and  at  a  distance  of  two  thousand  miles  from  the  seat  of 
General  government.  The  news  of  its  passage,  and  of  the 
amendment  defining  and  altering  the  boundaries,  reached 
some  of  the  principal  points  in  the  Territory,  only  two  or 
three  weeks  previous  to  the  time  for  taking  the  vote;  and 
the  effect  which  that  news,  thus  suddenly  and  unexpectedly 
sprung  upon  the  people,  must  have  had  upon  their  minds, 
and  the  revulsion  which  it  produced  in  their  feelings,  may 
be  imagined  from  the  fact  that  a  portion  of  the  democratic 
press,  the  advocates  of  the  Constitution,  felt  impelled,  on 
the  spur  of  the  moment,  to  protest  against  the  provisions  of 
the  bill,  and  to  earnestly  exhort  the  people  to  reject  them. 
To  this  cause,  perhaps,  more  than  to  any  other,  may  be 
attributed  the  heavy  vote  against  the  Constitution  in  Des 
Moines  county.  The  papers  here  referred  to,  as  soon  as 
they  had  time  dispassionately  to  canvass  the  subject,  and 
discover  their  error,  promptly  retracted  their  steps.  But 
the  poison  which  was  infused  into  the  public  mind  was  not 
so  easily  eradicated,  especially  as  the  time  was  verging  so 
closely  upon  the  day  of  voting. 

The  facility  for  communication  throughout  the  Territory 
being  very  inadequate  a  great  portion  of  our  citizens  were 
not  in  possession  of  the  news  until  within  a  few  days  of  the 
time  for  taking  the  vote;  and  when  they  did  get  it,  it  was, 
in  perhaps  a  majority  of  cases,  imperfect,  tortured  and 
exaggerated.  They  knew  generally,  that  Congress  had 
altered  their  boundaries,  but  we  venture  to  say  that  a  dozen 
different  opinions  were  entertained  with  regard  to  the  new 
boundaries  prescribed.  Many  thought  that  our  northern 
boundary  extended  but  a  few  miles  north  of  Dubuque, 
while  all  the  territory  which  is  in  dispute  between  Iowa  and 


240  Constitution  of  184^. 

Missouri  was  cut  off  and  given  to  the  latter. — Where  the 
news  was  correctly  received,  the  time  was  not  sufficient  for 
the  people  to  reflect  calmly  upon  the  new  aspect  of  affairs 
and  properly  digest  the  subject.  A  vague  impression  per- 
vaded the  public  mind  that  the  action  of  Congress  in  the 
premises  involved  flagrant  injustice  to  Iowa.  The  whig 
presses,  despairing  in  their  attempts  to  defeat  the  adoption 
of  our  admirable  Constitution,  by  making  its  intrinsic  merits 
the  only  issue,  seized  with  avidity  upon  the  means  which 
this  state  of  things  offered  to  them,  and  dexterously  turned 
them  to  advantage  in  the  accomplishment  of  their  designs. 
Inflammatory  appeals  were  made  to  the  people  to  reject 
indignantly  the  conditions  of  Congress,  which  were  stig- 
matized as  unjust  and  tyrannical  in  the  extreme.  What 
effect  these  appeals  and  the  accompanying  misrepresenta- 
tions produced  in  certain  sections,  may  be  judged  of,  from 
the  fact,  that,  in  at  least  one  portion  of  the  Territory,  as  we 
have  been  creditably  informed,  the  opinion  was  prevalent 
that  the  bill  had  reduced  us  to  a  diminutive  Rhode  Island 
pattern  of  a  state,  by  divesting  us  of  a  great  portion  of  the 
new  purchase. 

In  addition  to  the  above  causes,  one  which  has  contributed 
in  no  small  degree  to  the  unexpected  result  in  some  sec- 
tions, and  thus  jeoparded  our  Constitution,  was  a  lack  of 
energetic  and  concerted  action  on  the  part  of  its  friends 
and  advocates. — This  was  owing  to  their  full  confidence  of 
its  carrying  by  an  overwhelming  majority;  and,  being 
taken  by  surpirse  with  the  amendments — thrown  off  their 
guard  as  they  were — the  time  was  to  short,  for  preparing 
to  meet  the  emergency  in  the  proper  manner. 

It  only  remains  for  us  to  draw  a  few  conclusions  from 
the  foregoing  facts,  supposing  the  vote  of  the  people  re- 
cently taken,  shall  prove  to  be  against  the  adoption  of  the 
Constitution.     But  as  the  result  is  uncertain,  and  as,  if  the 


Press  Comments  Relative  to  the  Constitution.       241 

reverse  shall  prove  to  be  the  case,  it  would  be  throwing 
away  ammunition,  we  shall  not  be  very  elaborate  in  our 
argument;  but  will  merely  state  the  influences,  relying 
upon  those  facts  to  support  them. 

They  are — first;  that  the  vote  in  the  case  supposed,  can- 
not be  regarded  as  the  sense  of  the  people  upon  the  merits 
of  the  Constitution;  but  a  rejection  of  the  boundaries  pre- 
scribed by  Congress:  Second,  as  to  the  vote  upon  the 
boundary,  that  it  is  not  the  calm,  deliberate  and  unbiased 
voice  of  the  people,  upon  a  full  investigation  and  under- 
standing of  the  subject,  but  the  result  of  partial  and 
erroneous  information — the  excitement  and  confusion  con- 
sequent upon  the  question  being  presented  to  them  for  the 
first  time  at  so  late  a  day,  and  the  undue  advantage  taken 
of  the  peculiar  state  of  things  by  the  enemies  of  the  Con- 
stitution. We  do  not  entertain  the  least  doubt,  that,  should 
a  full  vote  of  the  people  be  taken  upon  the  same  question 
in  one  or  two  weeks  from  this  time,  there  would  be  at  least 
a  thousand  rnore  votes  for  the  affirmative,  and  as  many 
less  for  the  negative.  Third,  that  a  very  large  majority  of 
the  people  in  the  whole  settled  portion  of  Iowa  Territory, 
having  voted  in  favor  of  organizing  themselves  into  a  State 
government,  it  will  be  incumbent  upon  their  representa- 
tives, if  their  recent  vote  has  definitely  settled  the  question, 
to  adopt  prompt  and  vigorous  measures  for  the  purpose  of 

consummating  that  expressed  will. 
*********** 

— Reprinted  from  The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter  ^  Vol.  IK, 
No.  II,  Afril  ig,  184.5. 


x6 


242  Constitution  of  18^4. 

FROM  THE  IOWA  STANDARD. 

<'  The  Whigs,  as  a  party,  are  the  friends  of  a  State  Gov- 
ernment, and  desire  the  admittance  of  Iowa  into  the  Union. 
And  we  defy  the  Reporter  to  produce  a  single  iota  of 
evidence  to  prove  the  contrary." 

— Reprinted  from  The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter,  Vol.  IV., 
No.  14.,  May  10,  184.5. 


SPEECH  OF  MR.  LEFFLER,  OP  THE  COUNCIL. 

Upon  the  bill  to  submit  to  the  people  the  draft  of  a  Constitu- 
tion formed  by  the  late  Convention — May  21,  1845. 

Mr.  President — 

I  cannot  permit  the  vote  to  be  taken  upon  the  passage  of 
this  bill,  without  asking  the  indulgence  of  the  Council  to 
make  a  few  remarks.  The  details  of  the  bill  I  presume, 
are  now  settled,  and  settled  satisfactorily  to  the  Council, 
and  the  only  remaining  question  is  as  to  the  policy  of  its 
passage.  This  is  an  important  measure — the  most  impor- 
tant measure  of  the  session,  and  I  cannot  disguise  the  fact 
that  I  feel  a  deep  interest  in  its  fate.  The  vote  upon  the 
constitution  at  the  late  election,  cannot  be  regarded  as  a 
fair  expression  of  public  sentiment.  The  question  was 
presented  in  such  a  manner,  under  the  act  of  Congress 
providing  for  our  admission  into  the  Union,  that  it  was 
almost  impossible  for  the  people  to  understand  it.  A  great 
variety  of  opinions  were  entertained,  as  to  what  effect  a 
vote  for  the  constitution,  would  have  on  the  amendments 
made  by  Congress.  Some  entertained  the  opinion,  that  if 
we  adopted  the  constitution  we  necessarily  adopted  the 
amendments  made  by  Congress.  Others  entertained  the 
opinion  that  the  constitution  might  be  adopted,  and  the 
amendments  rejected  afterwards;  while  others,  not  having 


speech  of  Mr.  Leffier.  243 

an  opportunity  to  examine  the  act  of  admission  for  them- 
selves, could  not  form  any  opinion  upon  the  subject,  and 
consequently  declined  the  privilege  of  casting  their  votes 
either  for  or  against  the  constitution.  In  this  confusion  the 
constitution  was  voted  down;  and  voted  down,  too,  under 
circumstances  that  were  sufficient  to  induce  the  belief  that 
a  majority  of  the  people  were  anxious  to  adopt  it,  could 
they  have  done  so  without  committing  themselves  in  favor 
of  the  new  boundary  proposed  by  Congress.  The  object 
of  the  bill  now  under  consideration  is  to  present  the  con- 
stitution to  the  people  again,  as  it  came  from  the  hands  of 
the  late  convention — relieved  of  all  those  doubts,  difficul- 
ties and  embarrassments.  In  this  way  the  people  will  have 
an  opportunity  to  express  their  sentiments  upon  the  merits 
of  the  constitution,  and  if  the  question  can  be  presented  in 
this  way,  there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  of  the  result. 

I  entertain  the  opinion,  Mr.  President,  that  there  are  a 
majority  of  the  people  of  this  Territory  in  favor  of  organ- 
izing a  state  government.  This  is  not  a  new  question. 
Public  opinion  has  settled  down  in  favor  of  a  state  govern- 
ment, after  long  and  thorough  discussion.  As  early  as 
1838,  the  first  session  that  I  was  a  member  of  the  other 
house,  the  propriety  of  forming  a  state  government  was 
brought  under  our  consideration  by  the  Executive.  The 
whole  subject  was  referred  to  a  standing  committee,  and 
the  majority  reported  in  favor  of  state  government.  The 
minority  reported  against  it,  and  these  conflicting  reports 
gave  rise  to  a  very  animated  discussion.  Among  others,  I 
felt  it  to  be  my  duty  to  resist  the  attempt  to  form  a  state 
government,  believing  that  it  could  not  be  properly  sup- 
ported without  oppressing  the  people.  Our  country  was 
then  too  new  and  wild — our  cultivation  was  Hmited,  not 
producing  enough  to  supply  the  home  consumption. 
Heavy  requisitions  were  constantly  made  upon  our  people 
in  payment  for  public  lands,  and  our  population  was  small, 


244  Constitution  of  184^. 

perhaps  not  more  than  one  third  of  its  present  amount.  In 
short  we  were  passing  through  all  the  hardships  and  diffi- 
culties incident  to  the  settlement  of  new  countries.  These 
reasons  induced  the  Legislature  at  that  time  to  decide 
against  the  formation  of  a  state  government.  Our  condi- 
tion within  the  last  six  years,  has,  however  undergone  a 
material  change.  The  whole  face  of  the  country  now  wears 
a  different  aspect,  and  our  resources  now,  though  partially 
developed  as  yet,  are  rapidly  increasing  every  year.  The 
flood  of  emigration,  which,  for  the  last  five  years  has  set 
towards  this  country,  has  swelled  our  population  to  one 
hundred  thousand  souls  and  upwards,  which  for  energy, 
enterprise  and  intelligence  are  not  to  be  surpassed  perhaps 
by  the  population  of  any  country.  The  reasons  then, 
which  formerly  operated  against  the  formation  of  a  state 
government,  have  become  weaker  and  weaker,  in  propor- 
tion as  our  resources  have  increased,  and  the  public  mind 
has  undergone  a  corresponding  change.  This  change,  too, 
has  been  produced,  not  by  any  adventitious  circumstances, 
or  temporary  excitement,  but  as  the  result  of  a  gradual  and 
permanent  change  in  the  actual  condition  of  the  country. 
When  the  propriety  of  forming  a  state  government,  was 
submitted  to  the  people  at  the  last  April  election  '44,  upon 
the  question  of  a  convention  or  no  convention,  the  call  for 
a  convention  to  form  a  state  constitution  was  sustained  by 
a  very  large  and  unusual  majority.  The  aggregate  vote 
cast  at  the  election  was  but  little  above  ten  thousand,  while 
the  majority  in  favor  of  the  call  was  nearly  twenty-nine 
hundred.  This  result  cannot  be  regarded  in  any  other 
light,  than  as  a  very  clear  and  unequivocal  indication  of 
public  sentiment  in  favor  of  state  government.  At  that 
election,  then,  there  was  a  large  majority  of  the  people  in 
favor  of  a  state  government.  Has  anything  occurred  since, 
to  induce  any  reasonable  man  to  believe  that  a  majority  of 
the  people  now  entertain  a  different  opinion  ?     If  any  such 


speech  of  Mr.  Leffier.  245 

change  has  taken  place  sufficient  to  overcome  that  majority, 
I  must  be  permitted  to  say  that  it  has  escaped  my  observa- 
tion. It  is  reasonable  then,  I  think,  to  conclude,  under  all 
these  circumstances,  that  a  majority  of  the  people  are  now, 
and  have  been  for  the  past  year,  in  favor  of  a  state  gov- 
ernment. 

But  sir,  the  people  are  not  only  in  favor  of  a  state  gov- 
ernment, but  they  are  willing  to  organize  that  government 
upon  the  principles  laid  down  in  the  constitution,  as  formed 
by  the  late  convention.  I  do  not  pretend  to  say  that  all 
the  provisions  of  that  instrument  are  perfect — that  it  is  the 
very  best  system  of  government  that  could  be  formed; 
but  I  do  say,  that  if  we  should  hold  another  convention, 
I  do  not  believe  that  we  could  form  a  better  one,  while 
we  might  form  one  a  great  deal  worse.  It  is  safe  and 
sound,  liberal  and  practical;  and  while  it  will  give  to 
the  citizen  the  greatest  liberty  and  security,  it  will  not  be 
found  oppressive  in  its  operations.  I  do  not,  however, 
wish  now  to  discuss  the  principles  of  that  constitution.  I 
wish  simply  to  state  the  fact  that  the  people  of  the  Terri- 
tory were  satisfied  with  the  provisions  of  the  constitution, 
and  that  before  the  amendments  of  Congress  were  made, 
it  was  expected  on  all  sides,  that  it  would  be  adopted  by  a 
large  majority.  Why  then,  it  may  be  asked,  was  it  voted 
down  at  the  last  election?  I  answer  simply  because  the 
question  was  presented  in  such  a  manner  that  the  people 
were  induced  to  believe,  that  if  they  adopted  the  constitu- 
tion, they  would,  by  the  same  vote,  accept  the  new  bound- 
ary proposed  by  Congress.  Here  was  the  great  difficulty, 
and  the  only  way  to  get  out  of  it,  in  the  opinion  of  a  great 
many  of  our  citizens,  was  to  vote  down  the  constitution, 
boundaries  and  all,  and  then  afterwards  to  take  another 
vote  upon  the  constitution.  This,  as  the  question  stood  at 
the  time  of  the  election,  was  regarded  by  many  as  the  only 
safe  way  to  dispose  of  the  amendment  made  by  Congress. 


246  Constitution  of  184.4. 

The  bill  for  our  admission,  as  it  first  passed  the  House  of 
Representatives,  provided  that  the  assent  of  the  people 
should  be  given  to  the  amendments  proposed  by  Congress 
to  the  constitution,  by  a  convention  of  delegates  elected  for 
that  purpose.  Had  the  act  finally  passed  in  this  shape, 
there  would  have  been  no  difficulty  w^hatever,  because  the 
constitution  could  then  have  been  ratified  by  the  popular 
vote  in  April,  and  the  amendments  rejected  afterwards  by 
convention  of  delegates.  In  this  way  the  constitution 
would  have  been  disjoined  from  the  amendments  made  by 
a  Congress,  and  each  would  have  stood  on  its  own  merits. 
Had  the  act  of  admission  finally  passed  in  this  shape,  the 
constitution  would  have  been  ratified  at  the  last  April  elec- 
tion, and  we  should  not  have  been  called  oa  now  to  pass 
this  bill  to  refer  it  to  the  people. 

After  the  act  of  admission  had  passed  the  House  of 
Representatives,  in  this  shape,  it  was  reconsidered,  and  the 
clause  providing  for  the  ratification  of  the  amendments  by 
a  convention  of  delegates,  stricken  out,  and  another  provi- 
sion, entirely  different,  substituted  for  it.  This  substitute 
provided  that  we  might  give  our  assent  to  the  amendments 
made  by  Congress,  in  two  ways — either  in  the  "  same 
way,"  and  '•  at  the  same  time  "  that  we  had  provided  for 
the  ratification  of  the  constitution,  or  by  the  act  of  the 
"  state  Legislature."  The  first  mode,  then,  provided  by  the 
act  of  admission,  for  the  ratification  of  the  amendments, 
was  a  popular  vote  on  the  first  Monday  of  April  last, 
because  that  was  the  mode  we  had  provided  for  the 
ratification  of  the  constitution.  This  apparently  united 
the  fate  of  the  constitution  with  the  amendments — pre- 
sented, in  the  estimation  of  many,  one  indivisible  question, 
and  gave  ground  for  the  opinion,  that  we  could  not  vote 
any  other  way  than  either  for  both,  or  against  both — that 
we  must  ratify  the  new  boundary  with  the  constitution,  or 
reject  both  together.     This  was  the  great  mistake.     It  was 


Sfeech  of  Mr.  Leffler.  247 

this  awkward  and  bungling  legislation  on  the  part  of  Con- 
gress, that  defeated  the  constitution  at  the  late  election. 
They  made  a  most  important  modification  of  our  boundary, 
cutting  us  down  to  an  extent  which  they  had  no  reason  to 
believe  we  could  accept,  and  yet,  instead  of  separating  the 
questions  and  giving  us  a  separate  ballot  for  each,  they 
joined  them  inseparably  together,  as  was  generally  sup- 
posed, and  forced  the  people  either  to  accept  the  boundary 
or  vote  down  the  constitution.  The  constitution,  then,  was 
not  defeated  either  because  it  was  unpopular,  or  because  a 
majority  of  the  people  were  not  in  favor  of  a  state  gov- 
ernment; but  because  the  people  could  not  accept  it  upon 
the  conditions  proposed  by  Congress. 

The  question  now  arises,  what  is  the  proper  course  for 
this  Legislature  to  pursue  under  existing  circumstances? 
There  are  only  three  ways  that  occur  to  my  mind  to  dis- 
pose of  this  matter.  We  must  either  stand  still  and  do 
nothing,  or  submit  this  subject  to  the  people,  on  a  call  for 
another  convention;  or  we  must  refer  the  constitution,  as 
provided  by  the  bill  now  under  consideration,  again  to  the 
people.  The  first  proposition,  I  presume,  will  not  meet 
with  favor  in  any  quarter.  We  have  said  and  done  too 
much  already  towards  the  formation  of  a  state  government, 
to  abandon  it  now.  We  must  move  in  some  direction,  or 
the  public  will  be  greatly  disappointed.  Then  the  only 
choice  is,  between  referring  the  subject  to  the  people  again, 
upon  the  question  of  a  convention  or  no  convention,  or 
upon  the  ratification  of  the  constitution,  as  proposed  by  this 
bill.  But  why  refer  the  matter  to  the  people  again  upon 
the  question  of  convention  or  no  convention?  Have  they 
not  already  decided  in  favor  of  a  state  government,  after 
five  or  six  years  discussion  and  reflection,  by  a  very  large 
majority?  If  we  should  submit  the  question  in  this  manner, 
no  reasonable  doubt  could  be  entertained  of  the  result. 
The  people  would  vote  as  they  did  at  the  last  election,  and 


248  Constitution  of  1844. 

we  should  then  hold  another  convention,  at  an  expense  of 
eight  or  ten  thousand  dollars,  form  another  constitution, 
submit  it  to  the  people  for  their  ratification,  and  after  all 
this  trouble  and  expense,  we  should  land  just  where  we 
now  stand.  We  would  have  a  constitution  to  submit  to  the 
people,  and  that  we  have  already.  If  the  people  are  dis- 
satisfied with  the  provisions  of  the  constitution  let  them 
vote  it  down.  If  they  are  unwilling  to  form  a  state  gov- 
ernment, they  can  effect  their  object  as  fully  by  voting 
against  the  constitution,  as  though  they  had  another  oppor- 
tunity to  vote  against  the  call  of  a  convention.  If,  on  the 
other  hand,  a  majority  of  the  people  really  want  a  state 
government,  they  ought  to  have  it,  and  have  it  as  soon  as 
they  want,  and  if  such  is  their  wish,  they  will  be  gratified 
by  the  passage  of  this  bill.  I  cannot  then  concur  with  the 
opinion  expressed  by  His  Excellency  in  his  Message,  that 
the  question  of  state  government  should  be  referred  to  the 
people  again,  upon  the  call  of  another  convention.  It  is 
useless,  and  worse  than  useless,  to  go  through  all  these 
expensive  and  tedious  preliminaries  again.  The  people 
have  already  decided  in  favor  of  a  state  government,  by  a 
large  majority,  and  there  is  no  probabihty  that  they  would 
reverse  that  decision. 

But  sir,  it  has  been  said  that  this  Legislature  has  no 
power  under  the  organic  law,  to  refer  the  constitution  to 
the  people  again — that  the  constitution  has  been  voted 
down,  and  that  the  Legislature  has  no  power  to  revive  it. 
This  objection  has  been  urged  with  a  great  deal  of  zeal,  and 
the  people  have  been  called  upon  to  set  their  faces  against 
such  a  shameless  usurpation  of  authority  on  the  part  of 
the  Legislature. 

We  do  not  propose  to  revive  the  constitution  by  an  act 
of  the  Legislature,  but  simply  to  provide  that  an  election 
may  be  held  at  a  certain  time,  to  enable  the  people  them- 
selves to  revive  it,  if  they  see  proper  to  do  so.     We  merely 


speech  of  Mr.  Leffier.  249 

provide  another  opportunity  for  the  people  to  express  their 
opinion,  and  then  leave  the  constitution  in  their  hands,  to  be 
disposed  of  at  their  pleasure.  Is  there  any  great  assumption 
of  power  in  all  this?  Does  this  look  like  attempting  to 
force  the  constitution  upon  the  people  whether  they  are 
willing  to  accept  it  or  not?  Most  assuredly  it  does  not. 
On  the  other  hand,  if  we  should  refuse  to  refer  the  consti- 
stitution  to  the  people  for  another  vote,  after  they  have 
decided  in  favor  of  a  state  government  by  so  large  a 
majority,  it  might  be  said  with  some  propriety,  that  we 
were  attempting  to  prevent  the  formation  of  a  state  gov- 
ernment. We  are  told  in  the  Message,  that  this  matter 
ought  to  be  referred  to  the  people  again  upon  the  question 
of  convention  or  no  convention.  But  where  do  we,  as  a 
legislature,  get  the  power  to  do  this,  if  we  have  not  the 
power  now  to  refer  the  constitution  ?  Show  me  the 
authority  for  the  one  under  the  organic  law,  and  I  will  show 
you  the  authority  for  the  other,  so  closely  analogous  that  a 
hair-spHtting  distinction  cannot  be  made  between  the  two 
cases.  Whether  the  Legislature  has  or  has  not  the  power, 
is  a  matter  of  very  Httle  importance.  No  act  of  ours  can 
give  any  vitality  or  validity  to  the  constitution.  Its  binding 
force  and  obligation  must  arise  from  the  vote  of  the  people, 
and  until  their  assent  to  it  is  given,  it  can  have  no  authority, 
upon  the  broad  and  well  established  doctrine  in  free  gov- 
ernment, that  the  true  source  of  political  power  is  the  con- 
sent of  the  governed.  Then  it  makes  no  difference  how, 
or  by  whom  the  constitution  is  drafted, — whether  by  a  con- 
vention or  a  legislature — elected  for  that  purpose,  or  not 
elected  for  that  purpose — by  fifty  men  or  by  one  man — 
authorized  or  unauthorized.  If  the  constitution  should 
receive  the  sanction  of  those  who  are  to  be  governed  by  it, 
that  is,  a  majority  of  the  people  in  a  fair  election,  it  must 
then  be  taken  as  the  constitution,  the  fundamental  law  of 
the  land.  The  assent  of  the  people  gives  it  validity,  and 
nothing  but  their  assent  can  give  it  validity. 


250  Constitution  of  1844. 

But  here  the  question  will  doubtless  be  asked,  "  Why 
should  we  refer  the  constitution  to  the  people,  unless  with 
a  view  of  its  being  adopted;  and  why  should  the  people 
adopt  it  with  the  convention  boundary,  when  Congress  has 
already  refused  to  give  us  that  boundary?"  This  brings 
up  the  boundary  question,  upon  which  we  have ,  several 
propositions.  One  proposition  is,  to  divide  the  Territory 
by  a  line  running  east  and  west  through  the  forty-second 
degree  of  north  latitude.  This  proposition,  though  it  might 
be  favored  by  the  north,  would  not  be  satisfactory  to  the 
south,  because  the  extent  of  Territory  falling  below  the 
line,  with  the  Missouri  River  for  its  western  boundary, 
would  be  entirely  too  small,  not  being  much  larger  than 
one  half  of  the  extent  embraced  by  the  congressional 
boundaries,  which  have  been  recently  rejected.  To  run 
the  line  of  division  higher  than  the  forty-second  degree  of 
north  latitude  would  not  be  satisfactory  to  the  North.  In 
short  I  cannot  conceive  of  any  division  line  running  east 
and  west,  which  would  be  satisfactory  to  both  parties,  and 
unless  both  parties  could  be  satisfied,  I  should  be  unwilling 
to  see  the  division  take  place. 

The  next  proposition  is  the  boundary  proposed  by 
Congress,  the  unpopularity  of  which  defeated  the  Consti- 
tution. This  boundary  it  may  be  admitted  would  give  us 
a  handsome  little  State,  on  a  small  scale,  with  dry  lines, 
but  it  is  one  which  I  would  not  accept;  because  we  may  do 
a  great  deal  better,  and  there  is  no  danger  of  doing  worse. 
Congress  will  give  us  this,  whenever  we  apply  for  it,  but 
if  we  should  take  the  congressional  boundary  now,  we 
would  most  assuredly  never  get  anything  better.  We 
would  lose  a  large  and  valuable  tract  of  country  on  the 
Missouri,  and  a  large  and  valuable  tract  on  the  upper 
Mississippi  and  St.  Peters,  both  of  which,  if  retained,  will 
add  largely  to  the  wealth  and  power  of  the  State.  We 
would  lose,   not  only  territory  of  the  most  valuable  char- 


speech  of  Mr,  Leffler.  251 

acter,  but  the  navigation  of  these  streams,  which,  when  the 
resources  of  the  country  bordering  upon  them  are  fully 
developed,  will  be  important,  beyond  the  possibility  of  any 
present  calculation.  We  would  have  too,  mere  imaginary 
lines,  existing  only  on  the  face  of  the  map,  instead  of  the 
great  land-marks  traced  by  the  finger  of  nature.  Cut  off 
from  Missouri,  and  yet  running  so  close  to  it,  the  trade  of 
the  western  portion  of  the  State,  would  go  to  the  Missouri 
and  thus  make  us  tributary  to  the  power  and  influence  of  a 
foreign  State.  In  addition  to  all  this,  we  have  always  en- 
tertained the  fond  opinion  that  Iowa  was  to  become  event- 
ually, one  of  the  largest  and  most  powerful  States  of  the 
confederacy — but  if  we  should  accept  these  narrow  strait- 
laced  limits  offered  by  Congress,  we  would  be  reduced  at 
once  and  forever,  to  the  condition  of  a  fifteenth  rate  State, 
shorn  of  all  our  glories,  and  might  well  exclaim  in  the 
language  of  the  disappointed  cardinal,  ••  a  long  farewell  to 
all  our  greatness." 

The  only  course  then  which  we  can  properly  pursue,  is 
to  submit  the  constitution  to  the  people  with  the  old  bound- 
aries as  fixed  by  the  convention.  These  boundaries  were 
not  only  satisfactory  when  originally  agreed  on  to  all  parties, 
north,  south  and  west,  but  they  will  give  us  a  splendid 
State,  a  State  which  at  no  distant  day,  will  take  a  high  and 
commanding  position  in  this  Union.  But  it  may  be  said 
that  we  never  can  get  these  boundaries,  that  Congress 
never  will  agree  to  give  us  any  more  territory,  than  they 
have  already  offered  ?  This  may  be  true,  but  I  would  be 
very  unwilling  to  act  upon  such  a  supposition,  until  its  truth 
was  established,  beyond  all  manner  of  doubt.  The  next 
Congress  may  not  sustain  the  decision  of  the  last,  a  change 
may  come  over  the  "spirit  of  their  dreams."  At  all  events, 
the  old  boundaries  are  worth  another  application  to  Con- 
gress. I  should  insist  on  giving  Congress  another  fight, 
and  a  harder  and  a  longer  and  a  strongs  fight  than  we 


252  Constitution  of  184.4.. 

gave  them  last  winter,  before  we  give  up  the  contest,  and 
surrender  so  important  a  boundary,  a  boundary  which 
gave  entire  satisfaction  to  every  man  in  the  Territory.  If 
after  a  fair  trial,  we  cannot  get  the  conventional  boundaries, 
if  we  must  cut  down  to  obviate  the  objection  in  Congress 
of  too  much  Territory,  then  the  question  arises  where  can 
we  cut  off  from  the  conventional  lines,  with  the  least  injury 
to  the  interests  of  the  State  hereafter  ?  Where  can  we 
cut  off  a  sufficient  extent  of  Territory  to  obviate  the 
objection  of  Congress,  and  yet  not  dissatisfy  any  portion  of 
our  people  ?  I  believe,  if  it  should  become  necessary,  that 
we  might  cut  off  seven  or  eight  thousand  square  miles,  in 
the  northwestern  corner  of  the  State,  as  defined  by  the 
convention  boundaries,  without  much  injury  to  the  pros- 
pects of  the  State,  and  without  dissatisfying  any  portion  of 
our  present  population.  Say  that  a  line  should  commence 
at  the  big  bend  of  the  St.  Peters,  thence  in  a  straight  direc- 
tion to  the  north-west  point  of  Lake  Boyer,  thence  down 
Boyer  river  to  its  mouth.  This  would  throw  off  some 
seven  or  eight  thousand  square  miles,  a  country  too  which 
is  less  valuable,  than  any  other  portion  of  the  Territory. 
The  north  would  lose  but  very  little,  as  the  strip  proposed 
to  be  cut  off,  for  a  long  distance  south  from  the  bend  of 
the  St.  Peters,  would  be  very  narrow.  The  north  ought 
to  be  satisfied,  because  it  would  get  the  large  and  valuable 
scope  of  country  between  the  congressional  line  on  the 
north  and  the  St.  Peters.  The  south  would  be  satisfied — 
because  they  could  get  the  Pottawattomie  country,  and  the 
navigation  of  the  Missouri  river.  The  convention  bound- 
aries give  us  sixty  thousand  square  miles,  and  Congress 
was  willing  last  winter  to  give  us  forty-four,  and  as  I 
understand  they  were  not  particular  as  to  the  shape  of  the 
State,  or  how  it  should  be  laid  out,  provided  its  extent  did 
not  exceed  the  number  of  square  miles  last  mentioned.  I 
think  then,  that  the  proper  plan  is  to  insist  on  the  conven- 


Resolutions  of  the  Democrats  of  Van  Bur  en  Co.    253 

tion  boundaries  first,  and  get  them  if  we  can.  If  we  can- 
not, then  after  we  have  strained  them  up  to  the  highest 
possible  point,  propose  to  split  the  difference,  between 
what  the  convention  asks  and  what  Congress  has  proposed 
to  give,  and  propose  to  accept  some  such  line  as  I  have 
just  designated.  I  am  inclined  to  believe  that  such  a 
proposition  would  meet  with  a  favorable  consideration,  and 
when  they  found  they  could  not  do  any  better,  they  would 
be  willing  to  let  us  go  into  the  Union,  with  an  extent  of 
about  fifty  or  fifty-two  thousand  square  miles.  This  is  the 
best  plan  and  the  only  plan  that  I  can  suggest,  to  secure 
an  admission  within  a  reasonable  time,  and  without  sacri- 
ficing the  interest  of  the  State  hereafter.  This  plan  I 
believe  is  feasible,  and  if  it  succeeds,  I  believe  it  will  be 
satisfactory  to  every  portion  of  the  present  population  of 
the  Territory.  Let  the  constitution  then  go  to  the  people. 
If  they  are  in  favor  of  a  State  Government  and  satisfied 
with  the  provisions  of  the  constitution,  give  them  an  op- 
portunity to  adopt  it.  If  they  are  not  in  favor  of  a  State 
Government,  it  will  not  be  much  trouble  or  expense  to  vote 
down  the  constitution.  If  adopted,  let  it  go  to  Congress 
again  next  winter.  Give  them  another  fight  for  the  con- 
vention boundaries  and  if  we  cannot  get  them,  then  let  us 
make  the  next  best  bargain  that  we  can. 

— Reprinted  from  the  Iowa  Capital  Reporter,  Vol.  IV., 
No.  16,  May  24,  1845. 


FROM  THE  BURIylNGTON  GAZETTE. 
Voice  of  Van  Buren  County. 

The  Keosauqua  Democrat  of  the  9th  inst.  contains  the 
proceedings  of  a  large  meeting  of  the  democrats  of  Van 
Buren,  held  for  the  purpose  of  giving  an  expression  of  their 
opinion  and  wishes  in  relation  to  the  proper  policy  to  be 


254  Constitution  of  1844, 

pursued  with  regard  to  the  constitution  framed  for  our 
State  government.  James  Shepherd,  Esq.,  was  appointed 
President,  and  J.  H.  Bonney,  Esq.,  Vice  President. 

An  able  report  was  submitted  by  Uriah  Biggs,  Esq., 
which  was  adopted.  At  present  we  can  only  find  room  for 
the  resolutions  adopted  on  the  occasion : 

1.  Resolved,  That  in  the  opinion  of  this  meeting,  it  is 
expedient  for  the  Legislature  now  in  session,  to  provide  for 
the  expression  of  the  opinion  of  the  people  of  this  Terri- 
tory, relative  to  the  constitution  as  reported  by  the  Con- 
vention, without  regard  to  boundaries  or  extent. 

2.  Resolved,  That  in  the  opinion  of  this  meeting,  it  is 
expedient  for  the  Legislature  now  in  session,  to  propose  to 
the  people  of  this  Territory,  boundaries  for  the  State  of 
Iowa  as  follows: — The  Mississippi  river  on  the  East,  "Sul- 
livan's line  "  on  the  South,  the  Missouri  and  Calumet  rivers 
on  the  West,  and  the  43.  degree  of  North  latitude  on  the 
North. 

3.  Resolved,  That  we  consider  it  indispensable  to  a 
proper  expression  of  the  people  on  this  subject;  that  the 
same  be  submitted  to  them  unconnected  with  other  matters. 

4.  Resolved,  That  the  Democrats  of  Van  Buren  Co. 
call  upon  the  Democrats  throughout  the  Territory  to 
express  their  views,  and  wishes  in  relation  to  the  constitu- 
tion. 

*  *  *  *  *  H<  *  *  •"•        *         * 

— Reprinted /rom  The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter,  Vol.  IV., 
No.  17,  May  ji,  1845. 


ADDRESS  TO  THE  PEOPLE  OF  IOWA. 

Fellow  Citizens: — A  convention  of  delegates  repre- 
senting the  democracy  of  the  various  counties  in  the  Terri- 
tory having  again  submitted  my  name  to  your  consideration 


Address  to  the  Peofle  of  Iowa.  255 

as  a  candidate  for  re-election  to  the  Post  of  Delegate  in 
Congress,  it  seems  to  be  consistent  with  that  frankness 
which  should  characterize  the  intercourse  between  the  rep- 
resentative and  his  constituents  that  you  should  be  made 
acquainted  with  the  efforts  made  by  me  in  your  behalf  since 
last  I  had  occasion  to  address  you  two  years  since —     *     * 

Besides  several  other  bills  of  local  importance  to  which 
it  is  too  tedious  for  me  to  refer,  there  were  two  of  a  general 
character  to  which  much  of  my  time  and  attention  was 
devoted — I  allude  to  the  one  for  our  admission  in  connec- 
tion with  that  of  Florida;  and  to  the  supplemental  bill  which 
provided  for  the  due  execution  of  the  laws  of  the  United 
States  within  our  State,  and  making  us  grants  of  lands,  &c., 
both  of  which  passed  the  two  houses  of  Congress,  but  were 
rendered  inoperative  by  the  rejection  of  our  constitution  at 
the  April  election — a  result  which  all  candid  minds  must 
admit  was  produced  by  the  unlooked  for  alteration  and 
reduction  in  the  boundaries  of  our  contemplated  state. 
Although  we  rejected  the  terms  upon  which  Congress 
offered  us  admission,  as  was  our  right  and  duty  to  do  if  we 
thought  them  to  be  such  as  would  not  promote  our  growth 
and  prosperity,  I  mention  these  acts  of  Congress  for  the 
purpose,  among  others,  of  saying  that  their  passage  was 
attended  with  no  slight  labor  and  difficulty.  The  past  Con- 
gressional history  of  the  country  shows  that  there  is  much 
and  bitter  opposition  to  the  admission  of  new  members  into 
the  confederacy.  A  majority  of  the  Committee  on  Terri- 
tories, to  whom  the  subject  of  the  admission  of  Iowa  and 
Florida  was  referred,  was  composed  of  members  from  the 
south  or  slave-holding  portions  of  the  Union.  The  Dele- 
gate from  Florida,  supported  by  the  members  from  the 
South,  brought  forward  a  proposition  for  the  prospective 
division  of  that  State,  although  its  whole  territory  was  three 
thousand  square  miles  less  than  that  embraced  within  the 


256  Constitution  of  1844. 

constitutional  boundaries  of  Iowa.  The  object  of  this  move 
being  palpably  to  increase  the  number  of  the  slave  States 
and  the  weight  of  slave-holding  representation  in  Congress, 
it  of  course  met  the  warm  opposition  of  the  members  from 
the  non-slaveholding  States;  and,  as  a  counter  movement, 
they  came  forward  with  a  similar  proposition  in  regard  to 
Iowa.  After  being  fully,  freely,  and  even  angrily  dis- 
cussed, at  various  meetings  of  the  committee,  the  result 
was  that  the  proposition  to  divide  Florida  was  carried,  and 
that  looking  to  a  similar  division  of  Iowa  rejected,  by  a 
strictly  sectional  vote. 

It  was  here  that  I  discovered  for  the  first  time,  and  with 
feelings  of  the  deepest  mortification,  a  fixed  determination 
on  the  part  of  the  members  from  the  free  States,  and 
especially  those  coming  from  the  West,  to  disregard  our 
wishes  in  regard  to  our  State  boundaries,  and  to  impose 
upon  us,  as  far  as  their  action  could  do  so,  lines  consider- 
ably curtailed  and  mutilated. — When  the  bill  came  into  the 
House,  where  the  relative  strength  of  sectional  parties  was 
reversed,  the  action  of  the  committee  was  reversed  by  a 
large  majority;  the  clause  looking  to  the  division  of  Florida, 
as  soon  as  she  numbered  a  certain  population,  was  then 
stricken  out,  and  the  boundaries  of  Iowa,  in  opposition  to 
my  earnest  protest,  were  subjected  to  considerable  curtail- 
ment. The  arguments  adduced  and  the  influences  brought 
to  bear  in  effecting  this  result,  were  briefly  reverted  to  by 
me  in  a  letter  which  I  addressed  to  you  from  Washington, 
immediately  after  the  adjournment  of  Congress,  and  it  is 
not  necessary  that  I  should  now  repeat  them.  It  is  proper 
to  say,  however,  that  I  did  not  yield  to  any  of  those  argu- 
ments and  influences;  but  in  every  stage  of  the  proceeding, 
maintained  and  defended  the  boundaries  of  the  constitution 
the  boundaries  I  then  thought  and  still  regard  as  the  best 
that  have  been  proposed.  Inclination,  as  well  as  a  sense 
of  duty  to  those  I  represented,  impelled  me  to  this  course; 


Address  to  the  People  of  Iowa.  257 

and  I  here  take  occasion  to  say  that  every  member  of  Con- 
gress and  Senator  who  was  present  at  the  discussion  in  the 
House  or  in  Committee,  will  bear  evidence  to  the  truth  of 
this  assertion.  The  only  thing  I  regret  is  that  my  efforts 
were  not  more  successful.  I  proposed  no  amendment  which 
looked  hke  a  reduction  of  boundaries,  and  supported  none. 
When,  in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  Mr.  Duncan  offered  an 
amendment,  which  was  adopted,  purporting,  as  I  under- 
stood, to  give  us  the  boundaries  recommended  by  Mr. 
Nicollet,  but  which,  in  reality,  fell  short  of  those  bound- 
aries by  about  5000  square  miles,  I  called  the  attention  of 
the  House  to  the  fact,  and,  having  the  map  before  me,  I 
suggested  to  the  mover  of  the  resolution  such  a  change  in 
the  phraseology  of  the  amendment  which  had  just  been 
adopted,  as  would  give  us  Nicollet  boundary,  and  thereby 
carry  into  effect  what  I  knew  to  be  the  intention  of  the 
House.  The  House,  by  a  very  large  and  decided  vote, 
had  manifested  a  fixed  determination  not  to  give  us  the 
lines  asked  for  in  our  constitution,  but  to  assign  us  those 
recommended  by  Mr.  Nicollet.  Perceiving  this,  I  should 
have  been  wanting  in  duty  had  I  knowingly  permitted  lan- 
guage to  be  employed  in  defining  our  boundary  which 
would  have  given  us  some  5000  square  miles  less  surface 
than  it  was  evident  it  was  intended  we  should  have. 

In  the  circular  letter  which  I  addressed  you  from  Wash- 
ington in  March  last,  informing  you  of  the  changes  made 
by  Congress  in  our  State  lines,  I  expressed  the  opinion, 
based  upon  surrounding  circumstances,  that  we  would  not 
be  able  hereafter  to  obtain  more  extended  limits  than  those 
called  for  in  our  act  of  admission.  This  opinion  I  honestly 
entertained  and,  entertaining  it,  the  candor  which  I  felt  was 
due  from  a  representative  to  his  constituents  influenced  me 
to  avow  it.  My  object  in  issuing  that  circular,  was  to 
enable  the  people  to  vote  understandingly  upon  the  con- 
stitution, as  modified  by  the  action  of  Congress;  and  the 
17 


258  Constitution  of  184.4. 

statements  contained  in  it,  both  of  fact  and  opinion  were 
made  from  the  best  data  within  my  reach.  I  was  aware 
that  the  public  mind  was  likely  to  be  involved  in  great  con- 
fusion in  relation  to  the  changes  made  by  Congress  in  the 
metes  and  bounds  of  the  State,  and  being  at  a  point  where 
correct  information  as  to  the  size  of  the  State  could  be  ob- 
tained, and  having  before  me  the  best  and  most  recently 
pubUshed  maps  of  the  country,  I  entertained  the  hope  that 
it  was  in  my  power  to  lay  before  you  some  information  on 
the  subject  which  you  were  not  already  in  possession  of. 
In  doing  this  I  expressed  the  belief,  which  was  shared  in 
by  all  at  Washington  with  whom  1  conversed  on  the  subject, 
that  more  extended  boundaries  could  not  be  obtained;  but 
in  thus  expressing  myself,  I  certainly  did  not  suppose  that 
I  was  doing  an  act  which  would  in  any  wise  interfere  with 
my  official  conduct,  should  it  be  your  pleasure  to  continue 
me  in  your  service,  or  in  the  slightest  degree  disqualify  me 
from  making  the  most  strenuous  efforts  to  obtain  hereafter 
such  a  boundary  as  would  be  satisfactory  to  you.  Can  it 
be  presumed  that  the  action  of  Congress  is  to  be  influenced 
by  the  opinion  of  a  private  individual  in  a  matter  of  such 
great  moment .?  It  is  idle,  and  worse  than  idle,  to  suppose 
so.  Members  of  Congress,  in  determining  this  question, 
will  be  governed,  it  is  to  be  hoped,  by  considerations 
worthy  of  legislators  and  statesmen,  looking  to  the  harmony 
and  perpetuity  of  our  glorious  Union.  I  might  have  ex- 
pressed a  conviction  the  opposite  of  that  contained  in  my 
circular;  but  had  I  done  so  can  it  be  supposed  such  an 
avowal  on  my  part  would  have  induced  Congress  to  decide 
this  matter  in  our  favor  }  The  question  furnishes  its  own 
answer. 

If  again  sent  to  Washington  as  your  Delegate,  I  will  go 
there  to  carry  out  your  views,  opinions  and  wishes;  on 
this  subject,  as  on  all  others.  The  popular  feeling  has  been 
so  clearly  and  emphatically  expressed  in  relation  to  the  cur- 


Address  to  the  People  of  Iowa.  259 

tailment  of  our  boundaries,  as  to  leave  none  at  a  loss  to 
know  what  it  is;  and  did  not  my  judgment,  as  it  does,  tell 
me  that  the  boundaries  called  for  by  the  constitution  are 
those  best  calculated  to  make  Iowa  a  prosperous  and  happy 
State,  the  duty  which  a  representative  owes  to  those  he 
represents  would  impel  me,  were  I  again  called  into  your 
service,  to  devote  all  my  time,  talents  and  energies,  towards 
carrying  into  effect  the  voice  of  those  for  whom  I  acted. 

I  cannot  close  this  communication  without  congratulating 
my  fellow  citizens  upon  the  prospect  now  presented  of  our 
early  incorporation  into  the  Union.  The  emphatic  expres- 
sion of  public  sentiment  given  more  than  a  year  since  in 
favor  of  a  State  government  in  the  vote  upon  the  conven- 
tion, and  the  truly  republican  character  of  the  excellent 
constitution  now  presented  for  adoption,  forbid  the  enter- 
tainment of  a  reasonable  doubt  as  to  the  result  of  the  vote 
which  is  again  to  be  taken  in  August.  As  a  citizen  of 
Iowa  I  felt  proud  of  the  many  encomiums  I  heard  passed 
upon  the  constitution  during  the  past  winter  at  Washing- 
ton, by  many  of  the  most  distinguished  men  in  the  country; 
and  its  adoption  now,  after  being  once  voted  down,  will 
vindicate  us  from  all  improper  imputations,  and  show  to 
those  abroad  who  prize  that  instrument  that  its  principles 
are  equally  dear  to  us. 

***:{:  -^  ****** 

Respectfully  your  fellow  citizen, 

A.  C.  Dodge. 
Burlington,  June  23,  1845. 

— Reprinted  from  The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter,  Vol.  IV., 
No.  22,fuly  p,  184s ' 


26o  Constitution  of  1844. 

THE  CONSTITUTION— CAUSES  OF  ITS  DEFEAT. 

*  *     For  the  present  we  will  content  ourselves  with 

a  general  and  brief  notice  of  two  or  three  of  the  principal 
causes  which  are  known  to  have  exerted  a  great  influence 
upon  the  result,  and  either  of  which  alone  has  in  all  prob- 
ability, contributed  to  the  diversion  of  a  greater  number  of 
votes  from  its  support,  than  that  of  the  majority  by  which 
it  was  rejected.  The  majority  is  supposed  to  be  only  from 
one  to  two  hundred. 

First  in  the  list,  stands  the  pertinacious  and  wilful  mis- 
representations of  -the  whig  press  relative  to  the  bound- 
aries. Let  it  not  be  said  that  in  making  this  announcement 
we  cast  any  reflection  upon  the  people  at  large,  or  call  in 
question  their  capacity  and  intelligence.  The  most  enlight- 
ened communities  are  frequently  liable  to  be  deceived  by 
the  cunning  artifices  and  specious  misrepresentations  of 
designing  partizan  leaders,  occupying  the  advantageous 
irresponsible  position  of  the  assailing  party.  We  have  a 
striking  instance  of  this  in  the  ever  memorable  presidential 
campaign  of  1840;  with  which  the  recent  contest  upon  our 
proposed  constitution  will  bear  a  close  comparison  in  all  its 
main  features,  as  regards  the  position  and  course  of  the 
two  opposing  parties.         h=         «  *  «         *  * 

There  can  be  no  doubt  but  that  the  determined  and  un- 
tiring efforts  of  our  opponents  to  make  the  people  "  believe 
a  lie  '* — to  create  the  impression  that,  by  adopting  the  con- 
stitution now,  they  would  accede  to  the  boundaries  hereto- 
fore prescribed  by  Congress — has  been  so  far  successful  in 
the  south  and  west,  where  the  deepest  interest  was  felt  in 
large  boundaries,  as  to  create  a  diversion  of  at  least  three  or 
four  hundred  against  the  constitution;  and  this,  notwith- 
standing that  its  adoption  would  have  been  the  most 
effectual  means  that  could  possibly  have  been  resorted  to 
with  a  view  to  obtaining  their  favorite  boundaries.     The 


Press  Comments  Relative  to  the  Constitution.       261 

Burlington  Gazette  inform  us,  that  in  that  town  alone, 
fifty  persons  voted  against  the  constitution  under  that  false 
impression;  and  it  is  fair  to  presume  that  in  the  back 
country,  where  the  means  of  information  are  not  so  good, 
this  impression  had  a  much  greater  influence.  This  of 
itself  makes  one  hundred  of  the  majority  against  it.  The 
Iowa  Democrat  furnishes  the  same  from  Van  Buren  county. 
The  majority  there  in  its  favor,  is  some  fifty  less  than  last 
spring,  when  the  vote  was  understood  to  be  directly  upon 
the  Congressional  boundaries.  Just  prior  to  the  election, 
the  whig  paper  of  that  county  was  filled  with  such  inflama- 
tory  appeals  as  the  following — "  Strike  against  the  Consti- 
tution— strike  for  the  big  boundaries^  This  was  the  main 
issue  made  by  the  enemies  of  the  constitution,  as  we  can 
prove,  and  it  was  the  one  upon  which  they  relied  for  suc- 
cess. By  means  of  it  alone  have  they  succeeded.  The 
diversion  created  by  it  in  the  south  and  west,  more  than 
equals  the  majority  against  the  constitution. 

Another  cause  which  has  exerted  its  share  of  influence, 
though  probably  not  to  so  great  an  extent,  is  the  feeling 
which  is  known  to  exist  in  certain  sections  against  the  con- 
stitution, on  account  of  the  clause  fixing  the  capital  here  for 
twenty-one  years.  We  have  heretofore  exposed  the  man- 
ner in  which  the  jealousies  of  the  south-west  have  been 
excited  on  this  account;  and  we  shall  not  enlarge  upon  this 
branch  of  the  subject,  but  pass  to  the  third  and  last  cause 
which  we  shall  notice  at  this  time. 

In  Dubuque,  and  perhaps  in  one  or  two  other  northern 
counties,  but  especially  in  Dubuque,  it  is  well  known  that  a 
strong  feeling  exists  in  favor  of  a  division  of  the  territory 
upon  the  42d  parallel  of  latitude.  Though  it  was  notorious 
that  the  whigs  as  a  party  had  been  most  bitterly  opposed  to 
the  republican  provisions  of  the  constitution,  and  that  the 
leaders  were  determined  to  drill  the  forces  in  opposition, 
and  throw  their  whole  strength  against  it,  yet  the  whig 


262  Constitution  of  18^4.. 

paper  at  Dubuque  declared  that  in  that  section  it  was  not, 
and  could  not  be  made,  a  party  question — meaning  as  has 
proved  to  be  the  fact,  that  it  was  not  a  party  question  so 
far  as  the  Democracy  was  concerned,  while  the  whig  party, 
to  a  man,  voted  against  it.  It  is  true  that  a  preference 
existed  there,  as  in  other  northern  counties,  for  the  Con- 
gressional boundaries,  and  there  was  some  dissatisfaction 
with  its  submission  solely  upon  those  of  those  constitution; 
but  in  Dubuque,  the  great  adverse  influence  can  only  be 
regarded  as  resulting  from  this  division  project.  Well, 
what  was  the  result?  While  the  vote  for  Delegate  shows 
a  democratic  majority  of  210  in  that  county,  it  gives  a 
majority  of  224  against  the  constitution,  making  a  loss  of 
434  upon  the  constitution.  The  county  of  Jackson  gives 
Dodge  a  majority  of  157,  and  is  about  a  tie  upon  the  con- 
stitution. This  makes  a  falling  off  of  nearly  600;  and  the 
difference  in  Clayton  and  Delaware,  both  strongly  demo- 
cratic, are  expected  very  materially  to  augment  this  num- 
ber. Here  then,  is  a  loss  of  some  700  upon  the  constitu- 
tion, from  causes  so  far  removed  from,  and  having  no  con- 
nection with,  its  intrinsic  merits;  while  it  is  only  defeated 
by  one  or  two,  or  at  the  outside,  three  hundred  votes.  All 
the  gain  that  can  be  shown  in  its  favor  on  account  of  any 
sectional  interest,  is  a  paltry  thirty-seven  in  Johnson  county. 

In  view  of  all  these  facts,  who  can  have  the  face  to  say 
that  a  majority  of  the  people  of  Iowa  have  given  their 
voice  against  the  provisions  of  the  constitution  ?  The  whig 
press  has  intimated  as  much,  and  will  no  doubt  claim  it; 
but  what  man  in  his  senses,  will  believe  them  ? 

We  must  not  be  represented  as  advocating  the  resub- 
mission of  the  same  constitution.  The  only  true  course  is 
now  to  call  another  convention  at  such  time  as  the  people 
wish  it.  Though  we  regard  that  constitution,  as  a  whole, 
as  being  an  excellent  one,  superior  in  many  respects,  to 
that  of  any  of  the  States,  yet  it  is  susceptible  of  improve- 


Press  Comments  Relative  to  the  Constitution.       263 

merit  in  some  of  its  features.  But  the  leading  and  distin- 
guishing republican  features  of  that  instrument,  having  not 
been  decided  against  by  the  people,  should  never  be  aban- 
doned by  the  Democracy.  ***** 
— Refrinted from  The  Iowa  Cafital  Reporter,  Vol.  IV., 
No.  2g,  Aug:  27,  18^5. 


A  STATE  GOVERNMENT— OUR  POSITION. 

*  *  We  were  not  surprised  to  find  in  that  most 
violent  and  reckless  of  the  whig  prints,  the  Standard  of 
last  week,  a  declaration  in  favor  of  remaining  a  territory, 
based  upon  the  most  short  sighted,  narrow,  penurious,  and 
degrading  arguments;  and  this,  notwithstanding  that  during 
the  canvass,  it  roundly  denied  our  charge  that  the  whig 
press  and  leaders  were  secret  enemies  of  admission  into  the 
Union.  The  true  position  of  the  Democracy — that  of  the 
uniform  and  consistent  friends  of  a  State  government — 
which  from  the  first  they  have  occupied,  should,  and  will, 
be  maintained.  ****** 

— Reprinted  from  The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter,  Vol.  IV., 
No.  JO,  Sep.  J,  1845. 


DIVISION  OF  THE  TERRITORY. 

We  had  hoped  that  since  the  demise  of  the  bank  organ 
at  Dubuque,  the  suicidal  project  for  dwarfing  the  dimen- 
sions of  Iowa,  which  originated  in  that  town,  had  been  con- 
signed to  oblivion,  or  at  least,  that  it  would  no  longer  find 
an  avowed  advocate  in  any  press  within  our  borders.  But 
this  hope,  it  appears,  was  doomed  to  disappointment.  It 
was  through  the  instrumentahty  of  this  chimerical  project, 
mainly,  that  the  federal  party  was  enabled  to  wield  so 
powerful  an  influence  in  the  North  against  the  late  pro- 


264  Constitution  of  1844.. 

posed  Constitution;  while,  at  the  same  time  they  turned  the 
tide  against  it  in  other  sections,  by  falsely  representing 
that,  by  its  adoption,  the  people  would  accede  to  the  small 
boundaries  prescribed  by  Congress.  This  was  the  princi- 
pal ground  upon  which  the  Transcript  based  its  appeals  to 
the  people  in  opposition  to  the  Constitution — openly  re- 
pudiating any  party  issue  upon  the  question  of  its  adoption 
or  rejection. 

— Reprinted  from  The  lozva  Capital  Reporter,  Vol.  IV., 
No.  j7,  Oct.  22,  184.5. 


DIVISION   OF  THE   TERRITORY  AND   NORTHERN 

INTERESTS. 

[Extract  from  an  article  published  in  the  Territorial 
Gazette  in  April  1845.] 

"  The  Missouri  river  should  be  our  western  boundary, 
and  we  are  in  favor  of  making  another  effort  to  induce 
Congress  to  recognize  it  as  such;  but  we  would  not  pur- 
chase the  line  at  too  great  a  price. — It  is  not  necessary,  in 
order  to  go  to  that  river,  that  we  should  dismember  any 
portion  of  the  Territory,  as  at  present  organized,  neither 
will  our  people  be  willing  to  do  so.  If,  instead  of  the  42d 
degree  of  N.  latitude,  the  people  of  the  North  will  unite  in 
asking  for  the  43d,  little  doubt  can  exist  but  that  such  a 
change  can  be  effected  at  the  next  session  of  Congress. — 
The  objection  of  those  who  spoke  in  favor  of  Duncan's 
amendment,  was  to  the  extent,  and  not  the  shape  of  our 
State.  Such  a  line  would  give  us  a  front  on  the  Missouri 
greater  by  about  one  third  than  that  proposed  by  our 
Dubuque  fellow  citizens,  and  would  leave  us  the  same  num- 
ber of  square  miles  within  a  very  small  fraction,  that  are 
contained  in  the  boundaries  prescribed  by  Congress.     Its 


Press  Comments  Relative  to  the  Constitution.       265 

adoption  can  easily  be  effected,  if  the  upper  counties  will 
accede  to  the  change." 

«**  *  *  **** 

— Reprinted  from  The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter^  Vol.  JV., 
No.  43,  Dec.  j,  184.5. 


THE  OLD  AND  THE  NEW  CONSTITUTION. 

Under  the  caption  of  an  address  "  to  the  people  of  the 
central  counties,"  the  whig  organ  of  this  city '  takes  it  upon 
itself  to  enlighten  the  people  of  Iowa  as  to  the  whys  and 
wherefores  connected  with  their  rejection  of  the  old  con- 
stitution; deducing  therefrom  conclusions  against  the  incor- 
poration of  certain  features  contained  in  the  old,  into  the 
new  constitution  about  to  be  formed.  *  *  * 

Let  us  see,  then,  what  were  the  obnoxious  provisions 
in  that  instrument  which  induced  3'^our  course  ?  You  voted 
against  the  Constitution: 

"  Because  it  deprived  the  people  of  the  right  of  dictating 
the  laws  necessary  for  the  protection  of  themselves  and 
their  interests,  and  made  their  representatives  responsible 
to  the  Executive,  instead  of  the  constituency  by  which  they 
were  elected." 

''  Because  it  deprived  the  people  of  the  right  of  creating 
facilities  for  the  transportation  of  their  products  to  market, 
and  made  war  upon  labor,  by  prohibiting  the  construction 
of  works  of  internal  improvement,  and  the  association  of 
capital." 

"  Because  it  took  from  the  people  the  right  they  possess 
individually,  and    ought  to  enjoy  collectively,   to    borrow 

>The  Iowa  Standard. 


266  Constitution  of  1844., 

money,  if  they  desire  it,  for  the  improvement  of  the  country, 
and  the  development  of  its  natural  resources." 

"  Because  it  robbed  the  people  of  the  right  of  protecting 
themselves  against  the  aggressions  of  speculators  of  the 
adjoining  States,  by  providing  a  safe,  sound  and  convenient 
State  Currency,  which  would  be  under  the  control  of  their 

representatives." 

********* 

The  fifth  objection  is  to  that  clause  in  the  constitution 
which  provides  against  the  increase  or  diminution  of  the 
salaries  of  certain  public  officers  by  the  Legislature,  during 

the  term  of  office  for  which  they  were  elected. 

********* 

"  Because  it  conferred  upon  the  law-making  department 
the  exercise  of  power  which  legitimately  belonged  to  the 
judicial  department — the  right  to  sit  in  judgment  upon 
offenders  against  the  laws  which  it  had  enacted,  and  to 
condemn  and  punish,  without  affording  the  accused  the 
privilege  of  a  trial,  or  of  being  heard  in  self  defense." 

The  seventh  objection  alludes  to  what  the  writer  is 
pleased  to  term  an  apprehended  want  of  stability  and  in- 
tegrity in  the  courts  of  justice  from  that  clause  in  the  old 
constitution  which  made  the  Judiciary  elective  by  the 
people. 

"  And  because,  by  making  elective  all  officers  which,  in 
other  States,  are  appointed  by  the  legislatures,  it  virtually 
converted  the  State  into  a  political  arena,  and  held  out  as  a 
prize  to  political  partizans  all  the  honors  and  emoluments 

of  the  government." 

******  *  ** 

— Refrinted  from  The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter,  Vol.  V., 
No.  J,  Feh.  25,  1846. 


Press  Comments  Relative  to  the  Constitution.       267 

BOUNDARIES  OF  IOWA— PROJECTED  DIVISION  ON 
THE  42d  parallel. 

We  have  noticed  with  much  regret,  that  our  friends  of 
Dubuque  and  the  extreme  northern  portion  of  the  Terri- 
tory are  prosecuting  their  efforts  for  a  division  on  the  42d 
parallel  with  renewed  vigor.  Memorials  to  Congress,  hav- 
ing in  view  the  alienation  of  all  that  portion  of  our  Terri- 
tory lying  north  of  that  line,  and  its  erection  into  a  new 
territory,  have  been  industriously  circulated  in  that  section; 
and  we  understand  that  a  formidable  lobby  delegation  has 
been  sent  from  Dubuque  to  Washington,  who  are  making 
determined  efforts  for  the  accomplishment  of  the  above 
named  object. 

The  citizens  south  of  that  line,  numbering  at  least  eight 
to  one  in  proportion  to  those  residing  north  of  the  same, 
who  are  unanifnotisly  opposed,  and  will  never  consent  to  this 
ruinous  dwarfing  of  our  territorial  limits,  have  not  deemed 
it  worth  their  while,  at  this  time  to  send  direct  remon- 
strances to  Congress  against  the  consummation  of  this 
scheme.  ******* 

The  matter  is  well  understood  on  all  hands.  So  far  as 
our  Dubuque  friends  are  concerned,  they  are  impelled  by 
the  motive  of  turning  their  local  position  to  the  best  pos- 
sible account;  and  we  are  not  disposed  to  deny  their  right 
so  to  do.  It  is  to  be  expected  that  all  the  ingenuity  which 
they  possess,  ( and  it  is  certainly  no  mean  portion,)  will  be 

called  into  requisition  in  order  to  effect  their  object.      * 
**  **  vj  **** 

So  soon  as  the  news  of  the  curtailment  of  our  bound- 
aries reached  the  territory,  the  whig  press,  which  had 
before  despaired  of  defeating  the  constitution,  cryed  out  in 
one  acclaim  against  the  injustice  of  the  measure,  and  in 
impassioned  appeals,  called  upon  the  people  indignantly  to 
reject  the  conditions  of  Congress.     The  democratic  press 


268  Constitution  of  1844. 

faltered;  and  one  of  the  most  efficient,  (the  Burlington 
Gazette,)  declared  that  the  honor  and  interest  of  the  people 
required  that  they  should  reject  those  conditions.  The 
consequence  was  that  it  was  defeated  by  a  majority  of  900. 

The  resubmission  of  the  constitution  was  immediately 
agitated  by  the  democracy — the  whig  press  denouncing 
such  a  measure  as  an  usurpation  of  authority  by  the  Legis- 
lature, and  as  an  indignity  to  the  people,  who  had  rejected 
the  instrument  by  so  decided  a  vote.  It  was  resubmitted 
as  it  came  from  the  hands  of  the  convention,  with  a  proviso 
that  its  ratification  by  the  people  should  not  be  deemed  an 
acceptance  of  the  boundaries  prescribed  by  Congress. 
Thereupon  the  whig  press  and  politicians,  who  were  bit- 
terly opposed  to  its  provisions,  at  once  openly  and  boldly 
declared  that  the  resubmission  was  a  scheme  of  the  demo- 
cratic party,  to  force  the  Congressional  boundaries  upon 
the  people. 

They  represented  that  Congress  had  ^^  amended  the  con- 
stitution "  in  respect  to  boundaries — that  the  Congressional 
conditions  were  inseperably  connected  with  it,  and  if  adopted, 
t/iose  boundaries  must  of  necessity  be  adopted  with  it.  For 
those  whom  they  could  not  gull  with  this  story,  they  in- 
vented another;  which  was,  that  even  if  such  would  not  be 
the  immediate  effect,  the  final  result  would  be  the  same;  as 
when  the  constitution  was  once  adopted,  we  would  be  in 
the  Union,  and  entirely  at  the  mercy  of  Congress,  to  give 
us  such  boundaries  as  it  might  choose. 

Column  upon  column  was  published  in  each  number  of 
the  whig  prints  during  the  canvass,  to  enforce  the  above 
views,  and  hundreds  upon  hundreds  of  extra  copies  circu- 
lated among  the  people.  Though  we  frequently  challenged 
them  to  a  discussion  upon  the  merits  of  the  constitution, 
they  studiously  avoided  such  discussion  to  the  last.  This  is 
the  manner  in  which  the  second  rejection  was  accomplished, 
though  by  only  400  votes.  *  *         *  #  * 


speech  of  Mr.  Morgan.  269 

*  *         In  reporting  a  bill  which  establishes  the 

parallel  of  43  and  a  half  as  our  northern,  and  the  Missouri 
as  our  western  boundary,  including  about  5,000  square 
miles  of  territory,  the  committee  on  Territories  have  at 
least  discovered  a  disposition  to  do  us  justice.  That  com- 
mittee is  composed  of  gentlemen  for  whom  we  entertain 
the  highest  respect;  and  as  we  have  reason  to  believe  that 
they  acted  understandingly,  if  43^  is  the  ultimatum  of- 
Congress  for  our  northern  boundary,  we  are  not  prepared 
to  say  but  that  it  will  prove  acceptable  to  the  people.  *  * 
— Reprinted  from  The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter,  Vol.  V., 
No.  13,  May  <5,  1846. 


SPEECH  OF  MR.  MORGAN, 

OF   DES   MOINES,  IN  THE   HOUSE   OF   REPRESENTATIVES, 
MAY   31,  '45. 

The  Bill  to  submit  to  the  people  the  Draft  of  a  Constitu- 
tion adopted  by  the  late  Convention  being  on  its  passage 
{Mr.  Davis  being  in  the  Chair)  Mr.  Morgan,  of  Des 
Moines,  {Speaker.)  in  reply  to  Mr.  Munger,  spoke  as  fol- 
lows : 

Mr.  Speaker: 

It  is  with  unfeigned  reluctance  that  I  enter  upon  the  dis- 
cussion of  this  question — a  reluctance  arising,  not  from  any 
indifference  as  to  the  fate  of  this  bill,  but  from  a  sense  of 
the  fact  that  I  am  unable  to  do  it  that  justice  which  its 
importance  demands.  It  is  a  question  of  the  gravest  char- 
acter— one  involving  not  only  the  interests  of  ourselves  but 
the  destinies  of  all  who  are  to  succeed  us.  It  should  there- 
fore be  met  fairly  and  firmly — there  should  be  neither 
shuffling  on  the  part  of  those  who  are  opposed  to  the  pro- 
position, nor  hahing  on  the  part  of  those  who  are  in  favor 


270  Constitution  of  18^^. 

of  it.  It  should  be  met  and  treated  as  it  is  in  fact — a  ques- 
tion of  the  greatest  magnitude  to  all — one,  sir,  involving 
nothing  less  than  a  political  revolution — an  entire  and  con- 
sequently an  important  change  in  our  form  of  government. 
Than  this,  there  can  arise  no  question  more  interesting  to 
any  people.  Let  us  therefore  meet  it  and  treat  it  as  patriots 
and  statesmen  who  look  to  the  future  as  well  as  to  the 
present — let  us  meet  it  and  treat  it  as  honest  public  servants 
who  look  to  the  good  government,  the  happiness,  and  the 
prosperity  of  the  whole  people,  and  not,  sir,  as  demagogues 
and  paltry  politicians  who  look  only  to  the  evanescent  and 
contemptible  advantages  of  party. — Looking  at  the  ques- 
tion in  this  Hght,  and  regarding  this  as  the  patriotic  Hght  in 
which  it  should  be  viewed,  I  cannot  but  regret  that  the 
gentleman  from  Henry  ( Mr.  Munger,)  in  the  course  of  a 
speech  which  was  otherwise  free  from  fault  and  distin- 
guished for  eloquence  and  ability,  should  have  forgotten 
the  lofty  elevation  of  his  place  and  consented  for  the 
moment  to  play  the  party  hack  upon  this  floor,  and  to 
mingle  in  this  discussion  the  grossest  personalities  and  the 
rankest  political  prejudices. 

The  argument  of  the  gentleman  from  Henry  seems  to 
have  been  divided  into  three  parts — each  part  consisting  of 
"a  blunder."  This  budget  of  "blunders,"  when  opened 
and  examined,  appears  to  be  labelled  as  follows:  ist.  It 
was  a  "blunder"  on  the  part  of  the  Convention  to  forward 
the  Constitution  to  Congress  for  ratification  before  it  had 
been  adopted  by  the  people.  2d.  That  it  is  "a  blunder" 
on  the  part  of  the  Legislature  to  attempt,  by  any  enact- 
ment of  its  own,  to  submit  the  Constitution  to  the  people 
for  their  votes.  3rd.  That  the  whole  management  of  the 
question  by  the  Delegate  in  Congress  was  one  big  "  blun- 
der" from  beginning  to  end. 


speech  of  Mr.  Morgan.  271 

FORWARDING  THE   CONSTITUTION  TO   CONGRESS. 

Now,  sir,  <<  a  blunder  "  means,  in  the  sense  in  which  it  is 
used  by  the  gentleman,  and  in  the  sense  commonly  re- 
ceived, a  ridiculous  or  absurd  mistake.  Let  us  see,  then, 
how  far  the  action  of  the  Convention  was  ridiculous  or 
absurd.  The  people,  by  an  overwhelming  majority,  had 
just  decided  that  they  were  in  favor  of  a  State  Government. 
The  members  of  the  Convention,  then,  had  good  reason  to 
suppose  that  the  people  wanted  that  government  at  the 
earliest  day  practicable.  To  have  waited  for  the  adoption 
of  the  Constitution,  first,  by  the  people,  and  afterwards 
submitted  it  to  Congress  for  ratification,  would  have  been, 
then,  a  postponement  of  the  question  which  the  Delegates 
did  not,  under  the  circumstances,  feel  authorized  to  make. 
Hence  they  felt  it  their  duty,  because  the  overwhelming 
vote  amounted  to  an  instruction,  to  forward  the  Consti- 
tution forthwith  to  Congress.  That  the  result  has  been 
unfavorable,  indeed  fatal,  to  the  Constitution,  I  am  willing 
to  admit.  But,  sir,  this  act  of  the  Convention  cannot  justly 
be  called  a  "  blunder,"  because  the  members  of  that  Con- 
vention never  supposed  for  a  moment,  nor  had  they  or  any 
body  else  any  reason  to  suppose  that  Congress  would  have 
even  attempted,  much  less  accomplished,  so  scandalous  a 
mutilation  of  our  boundaries.  There  was  then  no  "  blunder" 
on  the  part  of  the  Convention  in  forwarding  the  Constitu- 
tion, because  they  had  no  earthly  reason  to  apprehend  the 
result  which  has  followed,  and  consequently  there  was 
nothing  ridiculous  or  absurd  in  their  management  of  the 
matter. 

POWER  OF  THE  LEGISLATURE  TO  SUBMIT  THE   QUESTION. 

The  second  "  blunder  "  in  the  gentleman's  category  of 
the  "  ridiculous  "  and  "  absurd  "  is,  the  effort  now  on  foot 
in  this  House  to  submit  the  Constitution  again  to  the  people 
by  legislative  enactment  and  without  the   intervention   of 


272  Constitution  of  1844.. 

another  Convention.  To  sustain  his  position  on  this  point, 
the  gentleman,  if  not  moved  by  the  instinct  of  certain  polit- 
ical principles,  would  at  least  seem  to  be  driven  by  a  dire 
necessity,  to  the  old  and  standing  resort  of  all  who  have  in 
all  ages  of  the  world  opposed  the  march  of  freedom  as  well 
as  the  alteration  of  all  forms  of  government,  excepting  per- 
haps the  alteration  and  obliteration  of  monarchies  and  des- 
potism. He  relies  upon  precedent,  sir — and,  with  an  air  of 
apparent  confidence,  he  trumps  up  this  old  bugbear  and 
humbug — this  alpha  and  omega  of  the  lawyer's  brief — and 
pleads  it  here  in  opposition  to  this  measure.  Now,  sir, 
precedent  will  do  very  well  in  courts  of  law — but  it  has 
nothing  to  do  with  forms  of  government,  or  the  proposed 
alteration  of  those  forms. — There  is  no  precedent  in  the 
world,  which,  as  such,  is  strictly  applicable  to,  or  should  be 
permitted  control  in  the  slightest  respect,  the  proposed 
alteration  or  establishment  of  any  form  of  government. 
Precedent,  sir,  belongs  strictly  and  solely  to  matters  of  the 
law,  and  in  this  respect,  when  duly  sanctified  by  time  and 
justified  by  the  every  day  practice  of  the  world,  it  is  en- 
titled to  deference  so  long  as  it  continues  agreeable  to  and 
consistent  with  the  spirit  of  the  age.  But  even  in  this 
sense,  ( its  applicability  to  the  science  of  law,)  when  it  loses 
its  power,  because  it  loses  its  practicability,  by  the  lapse  of 
time,  and  is  found  to  be  grown  into  a  hoary  headed  error,  it 
is  at  once  abandoned.  Precedent,  however,  so  far  as  it  ever 
related  to  the  establishment  or  the  change  of  government, 
has  long  since  been  repudiated.  It  was  repudiated,  sir,  by 
the  founders  and  fathers  of  this  Republic.  In  the  great 
emergency  which  made  rebellion  against  the  laws  of  the 
country  and  the  yoke  of  a  foreign  government  both  a  duty 
and  a  virtue,  it  was  found  that  the  potency  of  precedent 
could  not  be  brought  to  meet  the  crisis,  and  the  conse- 
quence was  that  a  new  and  bold  step  became  necessary, — 
that  step  was  taken — a  new  track  was  struck  out — and  a 


speech  of  Mr,  Morgan.  273 

new  precedent,  dispensing   with   and   repudiating   for   all 
time  to  come  all  precedents    relative    to    the  creation  or 
change  of  governments  was  adopted.     So  much,  then,  as 
to  the   effect   and  force   of  precedent,  as  connected  with 
political  revolutions.     In  addition  to  a  blind  adherence  to 
this  fallacy  of  precedent,  the  gentleman  is  also  at  war  with 
the  spirit  of  the  age,  which  in  all  things  and  especially  in 
political  science,  is  eminently  progressive.     His  argument 
is  at  war  also  with,  and  in  direct  contradiction  of  the  doc- 
trines held  by  the  most  distinguished  writers  on  political 
economy.     Among  these  I  may  mention  Vattel  and  Smith, 
of  the  old  world,  and  Jefferson  and  Madison,  of  our  own 
land,  between  all  of  whom  there  is  a   perfect  concurrence 
as  to  the  right  and  power  of  the  people,  in  any  form  and 
at  any  time  a  majority  of  them  please,  to  alter,  abolish,  or 
establish,  any   form  of  government.     This   ground  is  so 
broad  as  to  include  and  give  the  right  to  any  and  every 
nation  of  people  upon  the  face  of  the  earth.     How  pecul- 
iarly applicable,  then,  is  it  to  a  nation  of  freemen,  the  very 
genius  of  whose  government  is  universally  acknowledged 
to  derive  its  existence  from  and  to  be  based  upon  the  con- 
sent of  the  governed  ?     What  is  it  then,  sir,  that  gives,  or 
that  can   give  life    and    legality  to  a  Constitution  in  this 
country  ?     What,  sir,  but  the  voice  and  the  votes  of  the 
people  ? — They,  sir,  are  acknowledged  and  felt  to  be  the 
original  and  the  sovereign  source  of  power,  and  whatever 
a  majority  of  them  agree  to  adopt,  instantly  and  necessarily 
and  irresistibly  becomes  the  law  of  the  land.      My  humble 
opinion  is,  then,  that  it  matters  but  little — that  it  matters 
not  at  all — as  to  the  time  when,  or  the  manner  how,  or  the 
persons  by  whom,  this   Constitution  is    submitted  to   the 
people,  so  that  they  come  in  possession  of  it  and  vote  upon 
it.     If  a  majority  of  them  vote  for  it,  it  is  instantly  breathed 
into  being,  and  no  power  but  the  power  which  gave  it  life 
can  take  that  hfe  away.     The  only  thing,  in  fact,  which  it 
18 


274  Constitution  of  18^4. 

is  necessary  for  us  to  do, — and  that  we  certainly  can  do — 
is  to  provide  that  the  officers  of  the  law  shall  be  compelled 
to  open  a  poll  and  receive  the  votes  of  the  people.  This  is 
all  that  we  need  do — this  is  all  that  we  propose  to  do — and 
this  we  certainly  have  the  right  to  do.  Whatever  remains 
beyond  this,  belongs  to  the  people;  and  the  votes  of  the 
people  is  all  that  is  necessary  to  legalize  their  own  conduct 
and  make  legal  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution. 

POPULARITY   OF  THE   CONSTITUTION. 

The  gentleman  from  Mahaska  ( Mr.  Shelledy,)  who  was 
the  first  to  speak  upon  this  question,  dwelt  at  some  length 
upon  the  merits  of  the  Constitution,  and  favored  us  with  a 
few  invectives  against  certain  provisions  of  that  instrument. 
Now,  sir,  we  are  neither  making  a  new  Constitution  nor 
amending  an  old  one — we  are  merely  providing  a  means 
for  taking  a  vote  upon  a  Constitution  which  has  already 
been  agreed  upon  and  adopted  by  a  convention  of  dele- 
gates elected  by  the  people,  and  which,  in  the  simple  form 
that  it  came  from  the  convention,  and  unembarrassed  by 
extraneous  circumstances,  has  never  been  before  the  people. 
As  our  object  then  is  merely  provisional  and  not  creative, 
the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  do  not  and  cannot  form 
any  part  of  the  question  before  the  House.  I  am  ready, 
however,  and  free  to  say,  sir,  that  I  believe  that  this  Con- 
stitution, taken  upon  its  merits,  is  highly  popular  with  a 
very  large  majority  of  people.  I  believe,  too,  that  the 
principles  upon  which  it  is  based  are  the  true  and  genuine 
principles  of  honest  democratic  government — and  that, 
taken  as  a  whole,  it  will  stand  the  test  of  talents  and  of 
time  as  triumphantly  as  any  Constitution  in  the  world. 
This,  sir,  I  am  prepared  to  say — that  this  Constitution, 
which  has  been  so  much  carped  at  and  sneered  at  by  its 
enemies — which  has  been  made  the  butt  of  ridicule  by  all 
the  half-fledged  politicians  among  us — and  against  which 


speech  of  Mr.  Morgan.  275 

the  whig  prints  of  this  Territory  weekly  fulminate  their 
phillipics  and  slaver  forth  their  venom — in  the  face  of  these 
reckless  and  vindictive  assaults,  I,  as  one  of  the  friends  of 
that  instrument  am  prepared  to  say,  that,  taken  as  a  char- 
ter of  the  people's  rights  and  liberties,  which  are  both 
clearly  defined  and  safely  guarded,  and  taken  also  as  a 
system  of  republican  and  economical  government,  the  Con- 
stitution agreed  upon  by  the  convention  will  compare  favor- 
ably— aye,  triumphantly,  with  any  constitution  in  existence. 
This  Constitution,  sir,  I  repeat,  is  popular,  and  pre-emi- 
nently popular,  with  the  people.  Do  gentlemen  wish  to 
know  why  it  is  popular  with  the  people?  I  will  tell  them. 
It  is  popular,  because  the  people  see  in  it  a  safe  and  sure 
protection  to  all  their  interests,  from  their  liberties  down  to 
their  daily  avocations  and  their  worldly  goods.  This  much 
they  see  guaranteed  to  them  as  individuals.  They  also  see 
that  as  people  they  are  protected  against  any  fatal  legisla- 
tion— that  they  are  protected  against  the  possibility  of  the 
perpetration  of  any  of  the  Bank  Charter  and  Internal  Im- 
provement and  State  Debt  frauds,  which  have  in  times  past 
been  sprung  like  deadfalls  upon  the  people  of  other  States 
through  the  action  of  purchased,  perjured  and  corrupt  pub- 
lic agents.  These  are  some  of  the  considerations,  sir, 
which  make  the  Constitution  popular  with  the  people.  In 
addition  to  these,  too,  its  very  form  of  government,  which 
is  truly  democratic,  makes  it  popular.  The  duties  which 
it  imposes  upon  the  citizens  are  light — and  its  provisions 
are  simple  and  easily  understood — in  a  word,  sir,  it  contem- 
plates emphatically  a  people's  government,  and,  when 
adopted,  will  be  by  them  most  cordially  supported.  There 
is  then  every  consideration  to  make  the  Constitution  uni- 
versally popular  with  the  people — and  being  convinced,  sir, 
both  from  reason  and  observation,  that  it  does  and  must 
occupy  this  high  degree  of  favor  in  the  popular  mind,  I  am 
anxious  to  see  it  submitted  to  them  in  such  form  as  that 


276  Constitution  of  184.4. 

they  can  consistently  vote  upon  it,  and  in  such  shape  as  that 
they  can  safely  vote  for  it.  I  am  fully  persuaded  that  the 
people  all  over  the  Territory  desire  to  give  an  expression 
of  their  opinion  upon  this  subject.  I  can  speak  particularly 
of  the  southern  portion  of  the  Territory,  and  more  particu- 
larly of  my  own  constituency,  who,  I  do  know,  are  anxious 
that  it  should  be  submitted  to  them  at  the  earliest  day  pos- 
sible. They  are  ready  to  vote  at  any  moment — ready  to 
vote  to-morrow  if  they  could;  and,  sir,  they  are  ready  and 
anxious  to  vote  for  it,  now  that  it  is  freed  from  the  slander 
and  embarrassment  cast  upon  it  by  the  Congressional 
amendments. 

CAUSE   OF  THE   DEFEAT  OF   THE   CONSTITUTION. 

The  late  vote  against  the  Constitution  was  the  result  of 
circumstances  over  which  the  people  had  no  control,  and 
not  on  account  of  any  opposition  to  the  Constitution  itself. 
It  was  the  Congressional  amendment,  curtailing  our  bound- 
aries, and  not  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution,  which  pro- 
duced that  result.  The  amendments  made  by  Congress, 
besides  dwarfing  our  boundaries,  were  framed  in  terms  so 
utterly  ambiguous  that  it  was  impossible  for  the  best 
informed  men  in  community  to  ascertain  and  determine 
what  would  be  the  effect  of  a  vote  in  favor  of  the  Consti- 
tution. In  the  first  place,  sir,  we  received  intelligence  that 
an  amendment  had  passed  the  House  curtailing  our  bound- 
aries, and  making  it  a  condition  precedent  to  our  admission 
into  the  Union,  that  the  new  boundaries  prescribed  by  Con- 
gress should  be  accepted  and  ratified  by  a  convention  of 
delegates  elected  by  the  people.  This,  although  apparently 
confused  in  meaning  at  first  blush,  became,  on  reflection,  a 
very  clear  proposition,  inasmuch  as  it  disjoined  the  ques- 
tions, and  left  us  an  opportunity  to  vote  upon  the  Constitu- 
tion singly  and  adopt  it,  and  left  the  matter  of  boundaries 
an  open  question  for  future  action,  or  no  action  at  all,  as 


speech  of  Mr.  Morgan.  277 

we    might    have    deemed    advisable.     But,   sir,   for   some 
reason  which  has  never  been  explained  and  which  seems 
to  be  utterly  inexplicable,  this  amendment  was  superseded 
by  another  which  was  couched  in  terms  the  most  equivocal 
and  ambiguous  which  it  is  possible  for  language  to  express. 
Various    impressions  immediately  took    possession  of   the 
public  mind — a  few,  and  a  very  few  contended,  that  if  the 
Constitution  should  be  adopted  by  the  people,  an  accept- 
ance or  ratification  of  the  amendments  would  not  necessarily 
follow — but  it  was  contended  on  the  other  hand,  and  by  a 
very  large    majority,  that   if   the    Constitution    should    be 
adopted  we  would  be  bound  down  to  the  narrow  limits — 
that  the  General  Government  would  hold  us  to  the  bargain 
— that  it  was  impossible  to  vote  for  the  Constitution  with- 
out at  the  same  time  voting  for  the  Congressional  bound- 
aries— that  the  questions  were  undoubtedly  and  irrevocably 
joined,  and  that  there  was  therefore  no  opportunity  offered 
us    to    vote    upon    them    separately.      These    conflicting 
opinions,  coming  together  as  they  did  just  upon  the  eve  of 
the  election,  produced  their  natural  result — a  general  and 
wide-spread  confusion  in  the  public  mind — and,  sir,  it  was 
in  the  midst  of  this  confusion,  and  because  of  this  confusion 
that  the  Constitution  went  down.     That  it  sunk  under  the 
weight  of  these  fatal,  odious  and  outrageous  amendments, 
no  one  will  pretend  to  doubt.     That  such  was  the  case  is 
to  me  at  least  a  not  less  painful  than  well  known  fact;  for  I 
was  in  the  field  of  its  struggles,  and  I  can  say  with  confi- 
dence, that  I  saw  scores  of  the  most  devoted  friends  of  the 
Constitution  and  of  state  government  march  to  the  ballot 
box  and  vote  against  the  Constitution  upon  the  simple  and 
avowed  ground  that  they  believed  that  if  they  voted  for  it 
they  would  at  the  same  time  necessarily  and  unavoidably 
vote  for  the  Congressional  boundaries  also.     I  presume  the 
same  to  have  been  the  fact  to  a  greater  or  less   extent 
throughout  the  Territory.     This  proves  one  thing,  then. 


278  Constitution  of  18^4.. 

sir, — that  the  people  of  the  Territory,  as  much  as  they 
desired  a  state  government,  and  as  much  as  they  approved 
the  Constitution,  were  willing  to  sacrifice  both  rather  than 
submit  to  the  terms  proposed  by  Congress,  or  sacrifice  one 
inch  of  that  soil  to  which  they  are,  upon  the  simple  score 
of  justice,  so  well  entitled.  It  was,  then,  sir,  as  I  have 
before  remarked,  to  the  Congressional  Amendments,  and 
not  to  its  own  provisions,  that  the  Constitution  owes  its 
defeat — or,  more  strictly  speaking,  the  Constitution  was 
defeated  on  account  of  the  awkward,  bungling  and  barbar- 
ous terms  in  which  the  amendments  were  expressed. 

At  this  point,  sir,  I  may  properly  remark,  that,  had  the 
first  amendment,  which  disjoined  the  questions,  been  per- 
mitted to  stand,  the  Constitution  could  and  would  still  have 
been  adopted,  and  adopted  triumphantly.  It  could  have 
been  saved,  too,  had  the  bill  providing  for  our  admission, 
when  found  to  be  hampered  with  amendments,  been 
ordered,  on  the  motion  of  some  friend  to  the  Territory,  to 
be  laid  upon  the  table.  The  probability  is,  from  the  tone 
which  seemed  to  pervade  Congress  at  the  time,  that  a 
proposition  of  this  kind  would  have  been  readily  assented 
to  and  we  should  thus  have  had  the  Constitution,  and  the 
Constitution  alone,  fairly  before  us.  It  could  have  been 
carried,  too,  had  the  bill,  after  it  passed  the  House,  been 
permitted  to  slumber  in  the  hands  of  the  committee  to 
which  it  was  referred  in  the  Senate — a  committee  which 
was  known  in  the  political  world  as  the  "Whig  Opium 
Committee  " — an  appellation  which  it  received  in  consider- 
ation of  the  narcotics  which  it  was  in  the  habit  of  adminis- 
tering to  all  democratic  measures  committed  to  its  keeping. 
We  looked  alternately  to  each  and  all  of  these  chances,  as 
the  measure  passed  through  its  various  stages  in  Congress, 
to  afford  us  an  opportunity  to  save  the  Constitution — but, 
sir,  we  looked  and  prayed  in  vain — and  the  result  is  known 
to  the  world.     These  considerations  bring  me  to  what  the 


speech  of  Mr.  Morgan.  279 

gentleman  from  Henry  denominates  the  "  third  blunder  " — 
that  is  to  say 

THE   MANAGEMENT  OF  THE   QUESTION   BY  THE   DEI.EGATE. 

I  am  willing  to  admit,  sir,  that  in  at  least  a  portion  of  the 
points  just  considered,  the  action  of  the  Delegate  may  have 
been  unfortunate,  but  not  "treacherous,"  as  the  gentleman 
pleases  to  term  it.  But,  sir,  had  the  action  of  the  Delegate 
been  even  more  unfortunate,  under  the  circumstances  which 
surrounded  him,  I  should  not  reproach  him — nor,  sir,  shall 
I  hear  him  reproached  here  or  elsewhere  in  regard  to  this 
matter,  without  offering  at  least  a  word  in  his  defence.  I 
believe  the  truth,  and  the  whole  truth  to  be,  not  that  he 
was  over  solicitous  for  an  immediate  organization  of  State 
Government  at  all  hazards,  and  at  all  sacrifices,  with  the 
view  of  becoming  the  recipient  of  its  highest  honors,  as  has 
been  more  than  hinted  at  by  the  gentleman  from  Henry, 
but  that  he  was  governed  by  higher  and  purer  motives — by 
a  laudable  desire,  sir,  to  carry  out  what  he  honestly  beHeved 
to  be  the  will  of  his  constituents.  That  he  was  mistaken 
in  supposing  that  the  people  here  were  so  anxious  for  a 
State  government  that,  rather  than  forego  that  high  privi- 
lege, they  would  entertain  the  proposition  to  divide  the 
Territory — that  he  was  mistaken  in  this,  provided  such 
were  his  apprehensions,  is  too  plainly  manifested  in  the 
vote  recently  taken  on  the  subject.  His  object,  however, 
seems  merely  to  have  been— at  least  it  so  strikes  me — to 
give  the  people  an  opportunity  to  express  their  opinion  in 
regard  to  the  matter.  That  that  expression  is  adverse — 
decidedly  adverse — to  the  proposition,  I  do  not  pretend  to 
controvert,  because  the  heavy  vote  of  the  people  shows 
clearly  that  in  his  zealous  efforts  to  serve  his  constituents 
the  Delegate  did  more  than  was  desired  of  him.  This  is 
an  error,  however,  if  it  may  be  called  an  error,  for  which  a 
public  servant  may  be  more  fairly  excused  than  justly  cen- 
sured. 


28p  Constitution  of  i8^/f. 

We  now  come,  sir,  to  the  consideration  of  the  Delegate's 
Circular,  which  has  been  so  unceremoniously  and  so  un- 
necessarily lugged  into  the  debate.  As  it  is  before  us, 
however,  it  must  of  course  be  met,  and  so  far  as  I  am  con- 
cerned it  shall  be  met  with  candour.  That  circular,  then,  sir, 
I  do  consider  the  most  ill-advised  paper  that  ever  came  to 
light.  It  has  been  from  the  start,  and  it  continues  to  be  a 
source  of  the  most  profound  regret  to  the  friends  of  the 
Constitution  and  the  political  friends  of  the  Delegate.  And 
it  would  be,  I  am  free  to  admit,  a  legitimate  object  of  attack 
for  his  political  opponents,  provided  his  opponents  cared 
anything  about  the  Constitution  or  the  boundaries.  But 
we  know,  sir,  that  they  are  obstinately  opposed  to  the  first, 
and  if  that  falls  of  course  the  others  fall  with  it.  They 
care  nothing  about  the  boundaries,  sir;  then  opposition  to 
the  whole  project  of  state  government  is  enough  to  assure 
us  that  they  are  of  course  opposed  to  any  and  all  bound- 
aries. Their  tirades  against  the  circular,  then,  which  treats 
only  of  boundaries,  is  all  mere  gammon — a  small  specimen 
in  the  way  of  party  clap  trap — and  the  last  example  before 
us  of  a  sinking  party  catching  at  straws.  In  fact,  sir,  in 
looking  back  at  their  course  of  opposition  to  state  govern- 
ment— sometimes  opposed  to  it  on  one  ground,  sometimes 
on  another — now  opposed  to  the  Constitution — and  then 
forgetting  the  Constitution,  and  falling  pell-mell  upon  the 
boundaries — in  looking  at  their  various  twistings  around 
and  about  the  matter  we  are  forcibly  reminded  of  the 
hypocritical  piety  which  has  sometimes  been  played  off  by 
the  devil,  and  which  we  find  turned  into  verse  by  some  one 
of  his  many  biographers : 

"  When  the  devil  was  sick,  the  devil  a  monk  would  be; 
When  the  devil  was  well,  the  devil  a  monk  was  he." 

It  is  so,  sir,  with  the  opponents  of  state  government. 
For  a  time,  their  energies  were  put  forth  against  the  Con- 
stitution, as  the  vilest  proposition  that  had  ever  been  sub- 


Sfeech  of  Mr.  Morgan.  281 

mitted  to  a  free  people.  Suddenly,  the  tune  was  varied — 
the  Constitution  was  not  even  mentioned  by  them — but  all 
their  batteries  were  opened  upon  the  boundaries,  and  the 
circular  of  the  Delegate — thus  proving  that  their  whole 
opposition  is  entirely  partizan — that  next  to  defeating  the 
Delegate,  their  object  is  to  escape  that  general  sweep 
which  would  soon  overtake  them  under  a  state  govern- 
ment— and  that  consequently  the  matter  of  boundaries,  so 
far  as  they  care  about  them,  is  mere  moonshine  and  humbug. 

But,  sir,  as  to  the  Circular.  We,  sir,  who  are  the  friends 
of  the  Constitution,  and  the  political  friends  of  the  Dele- 
gate, are  the  only  persons  from  whom  complaint  can  justly 
come,  so  far  as  that  Circular  is  concerned.  We,  sir,  have 
some  reason  to  regret  its  appearance — the  opponents  of  the 
Constitution  and  of  the  Delegate  have  no  such  reasons,  and 
therefore  no  right  to  denounce  it.  I  admit,  sir,  that,  at  the 
first  blush,  it  would  seem  to  wear  the  appearance  of  an 
argument  in  favor  of  the  dwarfed  boundaries — it  looks  a 
little  more  that  way  than  we  would  desire,  sir — ^yet,  I  beheve 
that  a  fair  construction  of  its  language  would  show  that  it 
is  not  and  was  not  meant  to  be  an  argument  to  that  effect. 

On  the  other  hand,  sir,  the  circular  contains,  I  am  sorry 
to  say,  an  assurance  to  the  people,  and  per  consequence  an 
admission  to  Congress,  that  we  can  never  obtain  "  one  more 
square  mile  of  Territory  than  is  prescribed  to  us  by  the 
Congressional  boundaries."  Now,  sir,  we,  who  are  so 
deeply  solicitous  on  the  subject  of  the  original  boundaries, 
are  compelled  to  regret  deeply  this  untimely  and  unfor- 
tunate declaration — unfortunate,  sir,  because,  coming  from 
the  source  it  does,  it  is  calculated  to  weaken  our  pretensions 
before  Congress, — it  is  unfortunate,  too,  because  it  brings 
the  opinions  of  the  Delegate  into  public  conflict  with  the 
opinions  of  his  friends  and  into  conflict  with  the  proposed 
action  of  the  Legislature.  The  misfortune  to  all,  is,  that 
we  present  to  the  world  the  singular  spectacle  of  a  general 


282  Constitution  of  1844.. 

conflict  among  ourselves — and  the  danger  is,  that  this  con- 
flict may  make  an  unfavorable  impression  upon  the  public 
mind,  both  at  home  and  abroad,  and  jeopard  the  question 
when  it  shall  be  again  laid  before  Congress.  That  this 
circular  had  its  source  in  the  best  and  purest  motives — that 
it  came  fresh  from  the  honest  gushings  of  the  heart,  and 
from  the  best  dictates  of  the  judgment,  there  cannot  be  and 
should  not  be  one  solitary  doubt;  and,  sir,  all  who  are 
acquainted  with  the  turbulence  and  excitement  which  some- 
times attend  the  proceedings  of  Congress,  and  all  who  are 
acquainted  with  the  character  of  the  combinations  which 
are  sometimes  formed  upon  the  instant  in  the  House  of 
Representatives,  will  willingly  concede,  that,  under  the 
violent  and  sudden  outburst  of  opposition  which  sprung  up 
against  us,  and  which  no  one  could  have  reasonably  antici- 
pated, it  was  enough  to  appall  the  stoutest  heart,  and 
enough  to  force  the  conviction  upon  the  mind,  that  to  obtain 
the  extended  boundaries  was  indeed  impossible.  I  think, 
therefore,  sir,  that  the  extraordinary  circumstances  which 
surrounded  and  embarrassed  the  Delegate  throughout  this 
whole  contest  may  be  fairly  and  justly  pleaded  in  extenua- 
tion of  what  some  may  be  disposed  to  denounce  as  "treach- 
erous "  and  others  to  regard  as  unfortunate  and  injudicious. 
The  Delegate  is  entitled  to  nothing  more  at  my  hands  than 
justice — he  is  entitled  to  the  same  at  the  hands  of  every 
man  in  this  House.  I  stop  not  to  enquire  whether  others 
will  render  him  that  justice  or  not.  I  mean  only  to  dis- 
charge my  own  duty  as  conscience  dictates  it  should  be 
done,  and  to  "  render  unto  Caesar  the  things  that  are 
Caesar's."  If  I  have  failed  in  the  effort,  it  is  because  my 
mind  does  not  reflect  the  feelings  of  my  heart. 

Now,  sir,  a  word  as  to  the  feelings  of  the  people  on  this 
subject  and  as  to  their  opinions  with  regard  to  the  prospect 
of  obtaining  the  extended  boundaries.  It  is  evident  enough, 
sir,  from  the  tone  of  public  sentiment,  that  the  people  of 


Sfeech  of  Mr.  Morgan.  283 

this  Territory  still  believe,  that  by  another  appeal  to  Con- 
gress— by  another  and  strong  representation  of  facts — and 
by  a  united  and  determined  stand  among  ourselves,  we  can 
still  obtain  the  large  boundaries,  and  accomplish  our  admis- 
sion into  the  Union  under  them.  A  large  majority  of  the 
members  of  this  Legislature,  who  are  presumed  to  reflect 
the  public  sentiment,  are  of  the  same  opinion. 

In  view  of  this  state  of  public  feeling,  then,  I  will  briefly 
advert  to  the  reason  why  the  people  of  this  Territory 
should  contend  for  the  Convention  boundaries — why  they 
have  the  right  to  demand  them — and  why  Congress  will, 
at  a  second  hearing,  probably  be  induced  to  grant  them. 
First,  then,  as  to  the  reasons  why 

THE   PKOPI^K  SHOUI.D   CONTEND   FOR   THE   I.ARGE 
BOUNDARIES. 

The  people  of  the  Territory  should  contend  for  the  ex- 
tended boundaries  because  without  them  there  would  re- 
main but  few  inducements  to  go  into  a  state  organization, 
whilst  with  them  there  would  be  every  motive  to  take  that 
step.  Those  boundaries  form  of  themselves  several  hun- 
dred miles  of  steamboat  navigation,  and  embrace  within 
their  limits  some  60,000  square  miles  of  the  best  farming 
lands  in  the  world,  together  with  inexhaustible  mineral  re- 
sources and  all  imaginable  facilities  for  manufacturing  pur- 
poses. We  thus  have  before  us,  sir,  at  a  single  glance,  the 
great  interests  to  be  secured  to  us  provided  we  can  obtain 
the  original  boundaries.  Let  us  treat  this  question,  then, 
in  a  spirit  of  patriotism  commensurate  with  its  importance 
to  us  and  to  posterity.  Let  us  raise  our  thoughts  and 
shape  our  acts  above  the  party  expedients  of  the  day.  Let 
us  throw  behind  us  all  paltry  considerations  of  party,  and 
with  them  the  insignificant  capital  which  might  be  lugged 
in  to  effect  the  choice  of  a  Delegate  to  Congress — let  us 
cast  behind  us  all  petty  considerations  of  this  description. 


284  Constitution  of  18/J4. 

and  endeavor  to  elevate  our  minds  to  a  level  with  the  high 
interests  at  stake  and  to  expand  our  views  to  a  proper  ap- 
preciation of  the  subject.  Let  us  forget  that  we  are  acting 
for  ourselves,  and  endeavor  to  realize  the  great  fact  that 
we  are  acting  for  posterity.  This,  sir,  is  a  question  not 
merely  of  to-day,  but  one  which  belongs  more  especially  to 
the  great  future,  and  which  is  to  effect,  for  weal  or  for  woe, 
the  destines  of  our  successors  for  all  time  to  come.  Let  us, 
then,  cast  our  thoughts  ahead — let  us  keep  our  minds,  our 
hearts  and  our  eyes,  constantly  directed  towards  the  future 
— that  great  future,  sir,  which  is  to  rise  up  in  judgment  upon 
our  acts,  and  to  weigh  out  to  us  that  meed  of  praise  which 
shall  be  due  to  our  forethought  and  firmness,  or  that  share 
of  censure  which  shall  be  due  to  our  stupidity  and  folly — 
that  great  future,  sir,  which  will  bear  upon  its  every  feature 
the  impress  of  our  deliberations,  be  it  to  adorn  or  to  mar — 
that  great  future,  sir,  which  is  to  see  these  plains  as  bloom- 
ing as  the  rose  and  their  generous  bosoms  teeming  with  lux- 
uriant harvests,  or  a  wide,  deserted  and  desolate  waste,  as 
our  present  judgment  may  determine — and  that  great  future, 
sir,  which  is  to  see  our  population  as  numberless  as  the 
sands  of  the  sea,  prosperous  and  happy,  or  a  scattered  and 
broken  band  of  people,  wearing  upon  their  brows  the  deep 
and  unerring  signs  of  blasted  hopes,  as  the  wisdom  of  this 
House  shall  now  decide.  The  whole  responsibility  of  the 
decision  of  this  question,  then,  whether  for  good  or  for 
evil,  depends  upon  this  Legislature — the  whole  matter,  of 
both  the  boundaries  and  the  Constitution,  in  my  opinion, 
hangs  upon  the  passage  of  the  bill  before  us.  The  magni- 
tude of  the  interest  involved  should,  then,  bring  members 
to  a  full  realization  of  the  position  they  occupy,  and  awaken 
them  to  a  sense  of  the  fact  that  they  hold  in  their  hands  the 
destinies  of  future  generations.  They  should  meet  the 
crisis  like  men,  who,  feeling  that  they  owe  a  duty,  are  de- 
termined to  discharge  it  faithfully  and  fearlessly.     And,  sir. 


Sfeech  of  Mr.  Morgan.  285 

while  acting  from  impulses  such  as  these,  they  should  not 
forget  that  caution  which  is  advisable  to  be  observed  in  a 
matter  of  so  much  moment,  as  a  single  misstep  on  our  part 
might  endanger  if  not  defeat  the  objects  which  we  have  in 
view. 

As  an  illustration  of  this  point,  as  well  as  in  furtherance 
of  the  proposition  with  which  I  started  out,  suppose  that 
we,  as  a  legislature,  should  provide  in  the  bill  before  us, 
for  a  dismemberment  of  the  Territory,  or  that  we,  as  a 
people,  should  agree  to  accept  the  Congressional  bound- 
aries— what,  sir,  would  be  the  consequence  to  our  power, 
our  prosperity,  and  our  prospects?  Why,  sir,  we  should 
be  confined  to  a  single  stream  in  the  way  of  navigation,  and 
to  a  comparatively  small  district  of  country  for  settlement 
and  subsistence.  The  immediate  result  of  this  would  be  to 
drive  from  among  us  many  enterprising  citizens,  to  dis- 
courage and  dishearten  those  who  would  remain,  and  to 
put  a  sudden  and  everlasting  stop  to  immigration.  This 
would  be  the  first  result.  The  next  resulting  consequence 
would  fall  upon  those  who  would  succeed  us.  They  would 
find  themselves  burdened  with  the  expenses  and  the  respon- 
sibility of  a  State  Government,  without  any  earthly  means, 
independent  of  taxation,  to  sustain  it,  and  their  energies, 
even  for  individual  enterprise,  would  be  cramped  and 
crippled  by  the  narrow  limits  we  should  leave  them. 
Rather  than  a  lot  like  this,  I  would  leave  them  no  legacy 
at  all  in  the  way  of  government,  but  leave  them  free  to 
battle  for  their  own  boundaries. 

For  the  same  reason,  sir,  I  should  be  opposed  to  almost 
any  division  which  it  is  possible  to  conceive  of — certainly 
opposed  to  any  division  which  would  change  materially  the 
dimensions  or  the  proportions  of  the  present  boundaries.  I 
think  that  it  is  the  true  interest  of  the  whole  Territory,  and 
the  true  interest  of  all  parts  of  it,  to  contend  for  the  bound- 
aries  prescribed   by  the  Convention,  and  to  oppose  any 


286  Constitution  of  184^. 

dwarfing  of  the  lines  at  any  extreme  and  at  every  point. 
I  think  that  all  propositions  to  trim  down  the  boundaries 
even  one  hair's  breadth  on  either  extreme  should  be  indig- 
nantly repelled  by  all  who  look  to  the  true  interests  and 
the  future  greatness  both  of  the  people  and  of  the  State. 
We  of  the  South  are  strong  enough  to  protect  ourselves, 
and  we  will  exert  it,  sir,  and  effectively  too,  should  any 
effort  be  made  to  put  a  barrier  between  us  and  the  Mis- 
souri,— and  I  think,  sir,  that  I  can  safely  pledge  my  word 
to  gentlemen  from  the  north,  that  the  people  of  the  southern 
portion  of  the  Territory  will  never  take  advantage  of  their 
strength  or  of  any  other  circumstance  to  force  a  division  at 
any  point  south  of  the  St.  Peters.  For  one  at  least,  my 
voice  shall  always  be  raised  against  any  and  every  propo- 
sition so  unwise,  so  ungenerous,  and  so  unjust. 

To  return,  sir,  to  the  advantages  which  would  inure  to  us 
as  a  people  under  the  extended  boundaries.  Those  bound- 
aries would  afford  us,  as  I  have  before  observed,  several 
hundred  miles  of  steamboat  navigation  upon  two  of  the 
noblest  rivers  in  the  world.  They  would  also  give  us  a 
district  of  country  as  large  as  almost  any  state  in  the  Union, 
the  whole  of  it  pre-eminently  fertile,  and  embracing  every 
facility  for  carrying  on  agricultural  pursuits  upon  the  largest 
and  most  profitable  scale.  To  these  let  us  add  the  vast 
amount  of  manufacturing  power  which  is  bountifully  dis- 
tributed throughout  the  Territory, — and  to  this  again  let  us 
add  the  great  mines  of  the  north  whose  riches  are  inex- 
haustible. Putting  these  together,  have  we  not  before  us 
all  the  elements  of  prosperity  and  wealth — all  the  elements 
which  it  is  possible  for  the  mind  to  conceive  of  as  essential 
and  favorable  to  the  building  up  of  a  great  people  and  a 
great  State?  Now,  sir,  the  question  to  be  decided  is,  shall 
we  abandon  all  these  brilliant  prospects  without  an  effort  to 
secure  them?  Shall  we  fritter  them  away  in  pitiful  sub- 
divisions of  our  soil? 


Sfeech  of  Mr.  Morgan.  287 

Sir,  it  has  been  a  favorite  and  rather  fashionable  argu- 
ment with  some,  though  it  has  not  been  urged  upon  this 
floor,  that,  under  the  extended  boundaries,  two  great  rival 
interests  would  spring  up — one  on  the  Mississippi  and  one 
upon  the  Missouri:  that  these  interests  would  soon  come 
into  conflict:  and  that  commercial  jealousies  and  political 
struggles  of  an  unpleasant  character  would  soon  result. 
Now,  sir,  this  assumption,  or  apprehension,  is  not  justified 
by  experience.  Our  nearest  neighbor — the  State  of  Illinois 
— is  not  only  surrounded  but  intersected  by  navigable 
waters,  and  we  hear  of  no  conflicts  or  clashing  of  interests 
there,  neither  commercial  nor  political,  excepting  such  as 
grow  out  of  the  party  contests  of  the  times.  In  my  humble 
opinion,  sir,  prejudices,  heart-burnings  and  ill-blood  would 
much  more  naturally  arise,  and  be  more  certain  to  arise, 
under  the  boundaries  which  Congress  has  prescribed  for 
us;  as,  in  the  event  of  their  adoption,  the  border  settlers  of 
our  own  state  would  be  thrown  upon  the  Missouri  for  a 
market:  the  very  force  of  circumstances,  would  estrange 
them  from  all  duty  and  attachment  to  our  state :  their  labor 
and  their  wealth  would  be  drawn  from  us,  and  be  made  to 
flow  steadily  into  the  lap  of  a  rival  state,  which  would  soon 
outstrip  us  by  thus  having  the  power  to  levy  contributions 
upon  our  own  people:  the  natural  operation  of  interest,  too, 
would  soon  incline  the  sympathies  of  our  citizens  toward 
the  rival  state,  and  in  all  enterprises  of  our  own  we  should 
find  them  most  unwilling  co-laborers. 

THE  PEOPLB  OF  IOWA   HAVE  A  RIGHT  TO  DEMAND  TH:R 
LARGE   BOUNDARIES. 

The  people  of  this  Territory  have  a  right  to  demand  the 
extended  boundaries,  because  they  made  their  settlements 
here,  with  a  view  to  obtaining  them.  They  had  the  right 
to  expect  at  the  time  they  settled  here,  that  they  would  ob- 
tain these  large  boundaries,  because,  in  looking  at  the  past 


288  Constitution  of  18^4. 

policy  of  the  general  government,  they  found  that  the 
people  of  other  new  states  had  readily  obtained  all  the 
boundaries  they  asked  for,  and  that  in  one  instance  at  least 
a  large  and  valuable  scope  of  country  had  been  added  to 
one  of  them  even  many  years  after  its  admission  into  the 
Union.  The  early  settlers  of  this  Territory,  then,  had  a 
right  to  expect  that  the  general  government  would  deal  as 
justly,  as  fairly,  as  honorably,  and  as  liberally  towards  them 
as  it  had  dealt  towards  the  people  of  the  other  new  states — 
and  they  now  have  a  right  to  demand  to  be  put  upon  an 
equal  footing,  in  the  matters  of  territory  and  natural  ad- 
vantages, with  the  people  of  other  western  states.  Sir,  the 
general  government  owes  to  the  people  of  Iowa  all  that  they 
ask  for  in  the  matters  of  boundaries,  because  they  have 
made  the  country  what  it  is,  and  because  they  have  paid 
millions  of  money  into  the  public  treasury  for  their  lands. 
What,  sir,  would  be  the  condition  and  the  present  popula- 
tion of  Iowa  had  not  its  settlers  understood  from  the  start 
that  they  were  to  obtain  these  extended  boundaries  ?  Why, 
sir,  with  the  exception  of  perhaps  a  few  settlements  immer 
diately  upon  the  banks  of  the  Mississippi,  the  whole  Ter-. 
ritory  would  have  remained  to  this  hour  a  perfect  wilder- 
ness! and  for  this  reason,  sir,  that  any  other  boundaries 
than  those  proposed  would  have  cut  the  people  off  from  all 
those  agricultural  and  commercial  advantages  to  which 
men  naturally  look  when  entering  upon  the  settlement  of  a 
new  country.  The  people,  here,  sir,  have,  under  these 
circumstances,  a  right  to  protest  against  any  alteration  of 
these  boundaries — they  have  a  right  to  denounce  any  inter- 
ference with  them  as  an  outrage  upon  their  interests — they 
have  a  right  to  denounce  and  to  resist  the  proposed  inter- 
ference of  Congress  as  a  daring  and  a  glaring  fraud,  and  a 
palpable  and  scandalous  violation  of  an  implied  contract, — 
and  they  have  the  right  and  it  is  their  duty  to  demand  of 
Congress  that  this  fraud  and  this  outrage  shall  not  be 
visited  upon  them! 


speech  of  Mr.  Morgan.  289 

REASONS    URGED    AGAINST    OUR    BOUNDARIES   IN   CONGRESS. 

Mr.  Speaker — Before  entering  upon  a  discussion  of  the 
reasons  which  will  probably  induce  the  next  Congress  to 
admit  us  with  the  original  boundaries,  I  will  advert  for  a 
moment  to  the  objections  urged  against  them  at  the  last 
session. 

It  was  urged  by  Mr.  Vinton,  of  Ohio,  and  by  all  who 
were  deceived  into  an  adoption  of  his  errors,  that  a  subdi- 
vision of  western  territory  was  necessary  in  order  to  give 
the  west  its  due  weight  in  the  United  States  Senate.     To 
go  upon  such  an  hypothesis  is  to  suppose  the  Senate  a  rep- 
resentative body,  which  it  is  not,  but  merely  conservative 
in  its  powers.     Had  it  been  intended  by  the  framers  of  our 
government  that  the  Senate  should  be  in  any  sense  a  rep- 
resentative  of  the   popular  will,   it  would  of  course  have 
been  provided  that  it  should  be  made  the  representative  of 
numbers — the  same  apportionment  would  have  been  pro- 
vided which  now  regulates  the  number  of  members  of  the 
House — and  the  consequence  would  have  been  the  great 
State  of  New  York,  which  has  but  two,  would  now  have 
forty  members  in  the  United  States  Senate  and  the  little 
State  of  Delaware  but  one.     But,  sir,  such  was  never  de- 
signed to  be  the  character  of  the  Senate.     It  was  intended 
more  as  the  representative  of  the  States,  as  such,  than  of 
the  people,  that  the  states  might  thus  the  more  easily  and 
the  more  certainly  preserve  their  sovereignty  and  maintain 
their  independence  of  the  general  government.     It  matters, 
then,  but  little  what  may  be  the  population  of  a  State,  or 
the  population  of  any  section  of  the  Union,  so  far  as  its 
representation  in  the  Senate  is  concerned;  for  it  is  in  the 
lower  branch  of  Congress,   the  popular    and    democratic 
branch,  that  the  people  are  represented,  and  it  is  here 
that  they  must  and  will  be  represented  according  to  their 
numbers,  and  consequently  they  must  and  will  have  all  the 
weight  and  influence  and  power  to  which  they  are,  as  a 
19 


290  Constitution  of  1844. 

people,  entitled,  reside  where  they  may,  be  it  east  or  west 
of  the  AUeghanies,  east  or  west  of  the  Mississippi.  The 
proposition,  then,  is  just  as  broad  as  it  is  long.  If  we  can- 
not have  the  power  in  the  Senate,  we  must  have  it  in  the 
House, — and  if  that  power  can  be  made  to  be  felt  at  Wash- 
ington and  in  Congress  it  occurs  to  me  as  a  matter  of  but 
little  moment  which  end  of  the  capitol  may  become  the 
theater  of  its  action. — Then,  sir,  if  we  must  and  will  have 
our  due  weight — and  no  earthly  power  can  prevent  it — the 
question  arises,  whether  we  shall  sacrifice  our  own  interests, 
and  all  the  prospects  which  we  anticipate  for  posterity — 
whether  we  shall  bisect,  dissect  and  dwarf  our  boundaries, 
for  the  sake  of  obtaining  two  more  United  States  Senators 
from  some  other  new  state  west  of  the  Mississippi,  when 
then  the  fact  is  perfectly  clear — as  clear  as  the  sun  at  noon- 
day— that,  as  a  people,  we  shall,  without  this  sacrifice,  be 
certain  to  have  precisely  the  same  weight  in  Congress  ? 

It  was  also  urged,  by  the  same  member  from  Ohio,  in 
furtherance  of  the  proposition  to  cut  the  west  into  little 
states,  not  only  that  the  west  would  soon  contain  the 
majority  of  the  people  living  under  our  government,  but 
that  the  legislation  of  the  country  and  for  the  country 
would  be  safer,  and  wiser  and  better  if  committed  entirely 
to  the  control  of  the  west.  In  support  of  this  modest 
assumption,  it  was  urged  that  a  high  state  of  civilization 
prevailed  at  the  north,  and  a  low  state  of  civilization  at  the 
south — that  these  extremes  were  likely  to  continue  forever 
— and  that  to  curb  the  lofty  pretensions  of  the  one  and  the 
ignorant  fury  of  the  other,  the  west,  which  we  are  left  to 
suppose  as  half-civilized,  would  step  in  as  a  mediator,  and 
make  such  a  division  of  the  intelligence  of  the  north  and 
such  a  division  of  the  heathenism  of  the  south,  as  should 
make  both  conform  to  the  semi-barbarian  notions  of  the 
west.  Such  is  the  meaning,  as  nearly  as  I  can  get  at  it,  of 
this  position.     It  was  also  urged  that  the  interests  of  the 


S-peech  of  Mr.  Morgan.  291 

north  and  of  the  south  were  indissolubly  connected  with 
those  of  the  west,  though  opposed  to  each  other — that  the 
west  would  step  in  as  a  regulator  because  its  interests  were 
mutually  connected  with  both  the  north  and  the  south — and 
that  therefore  the  west,  occupying  a  sort  of  conservative 
position,  could  legislate  most  advantageously  not  only  for  the 
north  and  the  south  but  for  itself  also.     Now,  sir,  the  amount 
of  this  argument  is  simply  this — that  it  is  the  interest  of  the 
west  to  keep  on  good  terms  with  both  the  north  and  the 
south,  as  we  are  dependent  upon  both  for  our  markets. 
Well,  sir,  admit  this — and  suppose  for  a  moment  that  the 
whole  power  of  legislation  is  in  our  own  hands,  and  that  in 
furtherance  of  this  policy  we  legislate  so  as  to  take  good 
care  of  ourselves  first,  and  at  the  same  time  take  good  care 
of  the  interests  of  the  north  and  of  the  south  also.     I  say, 
sir,  let  us  admit  this, — and  now  let  us  reverse  the  position, 
and  throw  the  responsibility  of  all  legislation    upon    the 
north  and  the  south  also.     Are  they  not  mutually  depend- 
ent upon  the  west — as  dependent  upon  us  as  we  are  upon 
them  ?     Would  they  not,  then,  from  motives  of  interest, 
unite  in  favor  of  any  and  all  legislation  which  we  may  need, 
however  much  they  may  differ  upon  questions  relating  to 
each  other  ?     This  we  know  to  be  the  case  already,  and 
that  every  year  the  legislation  of  Congress  is  becoming 
more  favorable    to    the  west.     What,  then,  I  would  ask, 
would  be  the  advantages   resulting  to  us  from  holding  in 
our  own  hands  the  whole  legislative  power  of  the  country? 
These  reasons,  sir,  shallow  as  they  may  seem — shallow 
as  they  are — formed  the   burden   of  the  arguments  used 
against  us  in  Congress,  and  strange  as  it  may  seem,  they 
formed  the  point  upon  which  the  whole  question  turned 
against  us.     I  may  be   much   deceived  in   my  judgment 
upon  the  matter,  sir,  but,  after  looking  at  both  these  objec- 
tions in  every  light,  I   cannot   regard  them  otherwise  than 
as  most  arrant  humbugs — far-fetched  and  baseless — sickly 


292  Constitution  of  18^4, 

creatures  of  the  imagination  which  cannot  stand  a  single 
second  before  the  blaze  of  reason  and  the  force  of  truth. 

REASONS   WHY   CONGRESS  WII.I.  ADMIT  US   WITH   THE 
LARGE   BOUNDARIES. 

I  now  come,  sir,  to  the  last  point  which  I  shall  consider 
in  this  discussion,  to-wit,  the  reasons  which  will  probably 
induce  the  next  Congress  to  admit  us  with  the  original 
boundaries.  These  reasons  are  isNO-ioX^— first,  a  sense  of 
justice,  arising  from  the  sober  second  thought  of  Congress 
— secondly,  political  considerations. 

I  have  no  doubt,  sir,  but  that,  upon  reflection,  and  after 
hearing  another  statement  of  the  case,  Congress  will  be 
tempted  to  retrace  its  steps,  and  act  with  that  wisdom  which 
should  characterize  so  exalted  a  body,  and  with  that  mag- 
nanimity which  has  heretofore  been  the  glory  of  the  Amer- 
ican Congress.  In  addition  to  this,  political  considerations 
will  arise  which  must  necessarily  weigh  much  upon  the 
minds  of  members  from  all  parts  of  the  Union.  Sir,  when 
the  Senators  from  Florida  shall  take  their  seats  upon  the 
floor  of  the  Senate,  the  east,  the  centre  and  the  west  will 
feel  suddenly  and  sensibly  the  weight  which  is  so  soon  to 
disturb  the  now  evenly  balanced  scales,  and  they  will  be 
compelled  to  cast  about  them  for  a  counterpoise  to  preserve 
the  equilibrium  of  the  government.  Their  eyes  will  natur- 
ally be  directed  towards  us,  and  when  they  see  us  halting 
and  holding  back,  and  ascertain  the  cause  of  our  delay,  I 
think  the  great  probability  is  that  they  will  beg  us  to  come 
forward  and  bid  us  to  enter  upon  our  own  terms.  The 
north,  too,  will  see,  that  being  a  part  of  the  old  Louisiana 
Territory,  and  cut  off  by  nature  from  all  communication 
with  the  east,  we  must  naturally  and  unavoidably  find  our 
market  at  the  south  and  continue  to  find  it  there,  so  long  as 
the  Mississippi  and  Missouri  shall  roll  their  floods  in  their 
present    direction.     The    north  will   have  the   sagacity  to 


speech  of  Mr.  Morgan.  293 

see  this — and  that  same  sagacity — that  inborn  principle 
of  our  race — will  teach  them  that  "  where  the  treasure 
is  there  will  the  heart  be  also."  The  north,  sir,  will 
see  that,  cut  off  as  we  are,  geographically,  commer- 
cially and  politically  from  all  communication  with  the 
east,  they  will  have  nothing  to  gain  and  everything  to  lose 
by  the  erection  of  a  series  of  new  states  west  of  the  Missis- 
sippi river,  every  one  of  which,  from  the  force  of  circum- 
stances, from  geographical  and  commercial  connexions, 
must  unite  politically  and  will  unite  politically  and  forever 
with  the  south.  These  circumstances,  then,  will  decide 
the  question  for  the  north,  and  induce  northern  members 
to  labor  for  our  admission  with  the  original  boundaries. 
The  middle  states  will  have  but  little  to  say  in  the 
matter — or,  if  they  have  an  opinion,  it  must  be  in  our 
favor,  as  an  increased  number  of  senators  would  render 
the  middle  states  more  than  ever  the  prey  and  sport 
of  the  balance.  The  western  states  will  soon  repudiate 
the  new  fallacy,  that  to  keep  up  the  weight  of  the  west 
in  the  government  it  is  necessary  to  have  a  larger  represen- 
tation in  a  body  which  never  has  been,  and  never  can  be, 
representative  of  the  masses  or  of  any  particular  or  peculiar 
sectional  interests — and  hence  I  am  led  to  believe  that 
western  members,  moved  by  that  sympathy  which  they 
must  naturally  feel  in  the  affairs  of  a  near  neighbor,  will  be 
induced  to  take  us  by  the  hand,  and  guide  us  safely  and 
triumphantly  through  the  ordeal  which  awaits  us.  The 
people  of  the  south,  possessing  as  they  do  a  district  of 
country  sufficient  in  extent  to  keep  up  the  political  balance 
for  all  time  to  come,  will  of  course  have  no  objection  to  any 
boundaries  we  may  propose,  whilst  a  sense  of  justice  to 
themselves,  seeing  that  we  are  allied  to  each  other  by  the 
strong  ties  of  interest,  will  induce  them  to  throw  their 
whole  weight  in  our  favor.  These  are  the  considerations, 
sir,  which,  in    my  opinion,  will,  when  properly  impressed 


294  Constitution  of  1844. 

upon  the  minds  of  members  of  Congress,  induce  that  body 
to  welcome  us  with  open  arms  and  hail  our  admission  into 
the  Union  with  a  shout  of  sincere  and  heartfelt  joy. 

— Reprinted  from  The  lozva  Capital  Reporter,  Vol.  IV., 
No.  18,  June  7,  1845. 


SPEECH  OF  MR.  WILSON 

OF  DU  BUQUE,  IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REP'S.  MAY  31,   1845. 

The  Bill  to  submit  the  Draft  of  a  Constitution  formed  by 
the  late  Convention  being  on  its  -passage,  Mr.  Wilson  rose 
and  said — 

Mr.  Speaker: 

I  am  truly  sorry  that  this  debate  has  taken  such  a  course. 
I  am  sorry  that  so  much  of  the  time  has  been  devoted  to 
the  proper  or  improper  conduct  of  our  delegate  in  Congress 
concerning  the  boundaries, — one  speaker,  (Mr.  Munger,) 
attacking,  and  the  other  ( Mr.  Morgan,)  defending  his 
course.  For  myself  I  shall  endeavor  to  come  at  once  to 
the  question,  have  we  the  right  to  submit  the  Constitution 
in  August  next?  But  since  our  delegate  has  been  so 
violently  attacked  upon  this  floor,  permit  me  to  say  one 
word  in  his  defence.  His  course  upon  the  boundaries  is 
the  only  point  upon  which  he  is  censured  so  unmercifully, 
and  sir,  I  conceive  that  it  is  awarding  him  no  Httle  praise, 
to  say  that  after  so  many  years  of  devotion  to  the  best 
interests  of  this  Territory,  there  is  only  one  point  upon 
which  his  fiercest  enemies  can  pretend  to  attack  him.  But, 
sir,  I  stand  not  here  as  the  advocate  of  any  one  man, — I 
claim  to  justify  no  action  that  I  do  not  sincerely  believe  to 
be  honest,  conscientious  and  just.  As  a  solitary  individual, 
claiming  no  more  merit  than  that  which  I  believe  pervades 
the  bosom  of  the  masses,  I  would  uphold  no  measure  that 


Sfeech  of  Mr.  Wilson.  295 

stands  not  upon  the  great  principle  of  right,  that  does  not 
possess  of  itself  all  the  elements  and  attributes  of  truth  and 
justice.  For  my  part,  I  believe  that  he  acted  in  regard  to 
our  boundaries  from  the  very  best  of  motives,  and  with  a 
view  to  the  entire  wishes  and  wants  of  his  constituency,  and 
the  future  state  of  Iowa. 

What  are  the  facts  as  to  the  action  of  our  Delegate  in 
relation  to  the  boundaries  in  Congress?  Did  he  sit  calmly 
by  and  permit  that  body  to  despoil  our  Territory  without 
protesting  against  it?  Did  he  not  raise  his  voice  against 
it?  Certainly  he  did,  and  in  the  name  of  a  hundred  thou- 
sand freemen  west  of  the  Mississippi,  did  he  assure  Con- 
gress that  it  would  meet  with  the  universal  disapprobation 
of  the  people  of  Iowa.  His  warning  voice  was  not  regarded, 
and  the  very  men  whom  all  our  lives  we  had  been  accus- 
tomed to  look  upon  with  love,  as  the  guardians  and  pro- 
tectors of  Western  interests,  were  the  very  first  to  lead  on 
the  attack,  and  all  our  Delegate  could  do,  was  to  sit  calmly 
by,  and  witness  his  advice  and  counsel  rejected,  and  get 
the  small  boundaries  they  were  determined  to  give  us,  in 
the  best  shape  possible,  which  he  most  certainly  did.  It 
was  not,  I  believe,  until  after  the  very  last  ray  of  hope  had 
faded  from  his  vision,  and  the  reiterated  assurance  and 
action  of  men  from  whom  we  had  a  right  to  have  expected 
different  treatment,  that  he  would  at  all  consent  to  have 
anything  to  do  with  the  Congressional  boundaries,  and  that 
was  I  have  already  said,  when  the  Convention  boundaries 
could  not  under  any  possible  emergency  be  obtained,  and 
it  was  under  this  belief  that  he  acted,  and  these  are  the 
arguments  upon  which  his  Circular  was  based,  which  has 
borne  no  small  part  in  this  discussion. 

The  question  is  now  asked  quite  triumphantly,  by  the 
opponents  of  this  measure — "What  we  expect  to  obtain  by 
submitting  to  the  people  the  Constitution  in  August,  next 
with  the  Convention  boundaries,  and  nominating  and  send- 


296  Constitution  of  1844. 

ing  back  to  Congress  a  man  already  committed  in  favor  of 
the  Congressional  boundaries  ?  "  with  sundry  insinuations 
that  the  submission  of  this  Constitution,  is  but  a  ruse  to 
"  pull  the  wool  over  the  people's  eyes,"  and  that  we  would 
get  the  Constitution  adopted,  and  after  that,  the  mere 
matter  of  boundary  was  but  a  secondary  consideration,  and 
we  would  gladly  accept  the  boundaries  proposed  by  Con- 
gress. In  the  name  of  the  majority  of  this  House,  we 
repudiate  any  such  insinuations,  or  attempts  to  deceive  or 
gull  the  people  by  any  ruse  or  humbuggery.  As  one,  I 
don't  believe  it  is  in  the  power  of  this  House,  or  any  Leg- 
islature, to  long  deceive  the  people,  if  the  members  were 
ever  so  willing,  and  would  try  ever  so  hard.  The  aggre- 
gate intelligence  of  the  people  is  at  least  equal  to,  if  not 
greatly  in  advance  of  the  members  of  this  or  any  Legisla- 
ture, and  if  any  attempt  was  made  to  deceive  them,  they 
would  sbon  speak  out  in  thundering  tones  to  their  mis- 
Representatives,  and  hurl  them  from  their  seats,  with  all 
the  indignation  of  an  outraged  and  insulted  community. 
We  are  not  acting  like  children  in  this  matter,  it  is  not 
merely  a  play  that  will  be  forgotten,  but  it  is  a  great  and 
momentous  question  affecting  all  parts  of  society,  and  all 
conditions  of  men  within  the  limits  of  our  Territory. 

This  question  of  boundary,  is  an  all  absorbing  topic,  and 
no  question  created  so  much  excitement  in  the  convention 
as  this  question, — it  appeals  to  our  local  prejudices,  and 
arouses  our  sectional  jealousies,  and  it  is  the  most  danger- 
ous question  that  can  be  mooted  in  this  discussion,  and 
that  is  the  reason  why  the  question  has  been  left  as  the 
Convention  fixed  it,  convinced  that  that  boundary  is  entirely 
satisfactory  and  gratifying  to  not  only  every  section  of  the 
Territory,  but  also  to  the  great  mass  of  the  people.  As 
representatives,  representing  as  we  claim,  and  I  hope  do, 
the  people  of  the  entire  Territory,  I  think  no  boundary 
could  have  been  fixed  by  this  Legislature  that  would  please 


Sfeech  of  Mr.  Wilson.  297 

the  whole  people  of  this  Territory,  half  so  well,  as  the 
convention  boundaries, — to  us  of  the  north,  we  would  never 
be  satisfied  without  the  St.  Peters  as  our  northern  boun- 
dary,— embracing  the  magnificent  and  beautiful  country 
described  by  Mr.  Nicolett — abounding  with  lakes,  rivers, 
and  streams,  which  all  in  all,  according  to  his  description 
makes  up  one  of  the  most  delightful  and  most  desirable 
sections  in  Iowa,  abounding  with  hydraulic  power  sufficient 
to  turn  all  the  machinery  in  the  world,  and  its  prairies  af- 
fording the  best  pasturage  in  Christendom.  So  it  is  with 
the  south,  if  I  mistake  not  the  feeling  manifested  there, 
they  also  are  determined  to  go  to  the  Missouri, — and  to 
accomplish  this,  they  are  perfectly  willing  to  go  with  us  to 
the  St.  Peters  on  the  north.  This  will  give  us  no  little 
diminutive  State  that  we  could  "  put  in  our  breeches 
pocket,"  but  one  of  the  very  largest  class, — surrounded 
with  navigable  rivers — possessing  within  herself  all  the 
elements  of  sovereignty  and  greatness — abounding  in  min- 
eral wealth, — teeming  with  agricultural  and  manufacturing 
resources — with  a  population  daily  and  hourly  increasing 
in  wealth,  numbers  and  intelHgence,  who  can  set  metes  and 
bounds  to  the  future  glory  of  the  young  Lion  of  the  west? 
Then  any  one  can  see,  that  we  are  perfectly  sincere  in  our 
professions  as  regards  to  the  Convention  boundaries,  and 
after  they  are  adopted,  we  conceive  the  delegate  to  be 
instructed  by  the  highest  authority  in  the  land — the  voice 
of  the  sovereigns,  to  say  nothing  of  the  action  of  this  Legis- 
lature. So  that  no  matter  what  any  individual's  private 
opinion  might  be  as  regards  our  boundaries,  or  no  matter 
what  action  any  past  Congress  might  have  taken,  with  the 
new  Congress  coming  in,  with  a  proper  spirit,  which  if  I 
mistake  not  pervades  the  bosoms  of  the  people,  we  will 
demand  our  original  boundaries,  and  submit  to  nothing 
less. 

The  gentleman  from  Heory  has  asked  quite  triumphantly 


298  Constitution  of  1844. 

for  reasons  for  the  passage  of  this  law,  and  says  that  he 
has  listened  in  vain  for  a  single  one,  and  therefore  he  comes 
at  once  to  the  very  unreasonable  supposition,  that  we  have 
none,  and  that  none  exist.  Now,  sir,  the  general  rule  of 
discussion  and  common  sense,  require  that  we  should  know 
the  objections  to  this  measure,  before  we  know  what 
charges  to  answer,  and  I  must  confess  sir,  that  I  have 
listened  in  vain  for  one  solitary  objection,  that  carries  with 
it  even  the  show  of  a  respectable  argument.  To  be  sure 
we  have  heard  some  fine  declamation — some  bitter  invec- 
tive, and  some  objections  to  the  constitution;  but  without 
we  dignify  what  we  have  heard  with  the  name  of  argu- 
ment and  logic,  concerning  "revolutionary  schemes," 
"unprecedented  measure,"  "no  law,"  "usurping  power" 
and  "submitting  a  constitution  that  has  been  once  defeated," 
&c.,  I  repeat  it  then,  without  we  dignify  these  with  the 
appellation  of  arguments,  there  would  be  nothing  of  which 
the  affirmative  of  this  question  could  avail  itself  in  this  dis- 
cussion. I  repudiate  sir  the  allusion  and  dragging  up  here 
our  oaths  of  office,  and  warning  us  to  beware  of  perjury  in 
thus  passing  a  law  that  was  thought  to  be  without  our  pale, 
and  hoping  that  we  will  not  do  violence  to  our  oaths  and 
subvert  and  trample  upon  the  Organic  law,  and  thus 
destroy  the  constitution  of  the  Territory. 

This  cry  of  perjury,  is  sir,  intended  as  a  mere  bugbear, 
and  is  done  for  no  other  object  than  to  make  of  them  the 
raw  bones  and  bloody  head  that  is  to  frighten  the  timid  and 
draw  off  the  faint-hearted.  This  matter  of  oaths,  is  a  matter 
of  conscience,  and  so  far  as  I  am  concerned,  it  is  a  matter 
between  me  and  my  God,  and  which  concerns  no  one  but 
myself,  and  any  more  allusions  to  our  oaths  will  be  ill  timed, 
and  should  be  repelled  with  scorn  by  every  member  of  this 
House,  and  so  far  from  frightening  the  members,  it  will 
only  make  them  appear  as  men  who  knowing  their  rights, 
dare  maintain  them  at  all  hazards.     So  it  is  with  the  stab 


speech  of  Mr.  Wilson.  299 

that  will  be  aimed  at  the  constitution  by  the  passage  of  this 
law.  This  is  no  new  warning — it  has  been  the  constant 
war  cry  of  the  whigs  for  years,  and  its  spirit  is  always 
invoked  whenever  they  are  pushed  to  the  wall  for  argument, 
and  wish  to  rally  their  forces  against  any  leading  measure 
of  the  Democracy.  Within  sir,  my  short  life  time,  this 
same  identical  old  constitution  has  received  scores  of  such 
deadly  wounds.  The  election  of  Gen.  Jackson  was  pro- 
claimed to  be  worse  than  "  War,  pestilence  and  famine," 
and  his  veto  of  the  bill  to  renew  the  charter  of  the  old 
United  States  Bank  was  regarded  by  the  federalists  as  a 
stab  at  the  very  constitution — his  removal  of  the  public 
Deposits  from  that  dangerous  institution  was  another — the 
refusal  of  the  States  to  submit  to  the  famous  mandamus  act, 
was  a  deep  and  appalling  thrust  at  its  very  vitals.  But, 
thank  God!  notwithstanding  this  yearly  killing  of  the  con- 
stitution, that  sacred  charter  of  our  liberties  still  survives, 
unscathed  by  these  many  fatal  wounds,  and  that  it  will  con- 
tinue to  live  and  flourish  for  generations  yet  to  come,  is  the 
patriot's  hope  and  the  burthen  of  his  prayer. 

We  come  now  at  once  to  the  question,  have  we  a  right 
to  submit  this  constitution  ?  or  have  we  a  right  to  order  polls 
to  be  opened  in  the  different  counties,  townships  and  pre- 
cincts, and  compel  the  judges  of  said  election  there  to 
receive  votes  "for"  or  "against  the  constitution."  I  con- 
tend sir,  that  we  have  not  only  the  right,  but  that  it  is  as 
perfectly  clear  and  apparent  as  a  sunbeam.  The  6th  sec- 
tion of  the  Organic  law  says,  "that  the  legislative  power  of 
the  Territory  shall  extend  to  all  rightful  subjects  of  legisla- 
tion." Now  sir,  I  ask  is  this  not  a  rightful  subject  of  legis- 
lation? Most  clear  to  my  mind.  If  it  is  not,  then  let  us 
look  for  a  moment  at  the  hypothesis  of  our  opponents,  that 
we  have  no  right  to  submit  a  dead  constitution,  or 
one  that  has  been  once  rejected  by  the  people.  I  ask 
then,  where  would  they  get  authority  to  call  another  con- 


300  Constitution  of  184/j.. 

vention,    unless    it    should   be    from   the  Legislature,    and 
if  this  Legislature  could  call  another  convention,  and  that 
call   would    be    perfectly   legal,   does  not    the  very   same 
authority  exist,  and  is  perfectly  analogous  for  submitting 
this  constitution,  and  causing  polls  to  be  opened  for  that 
purpose,  and  giving  the  people  the  right  and  the  privilege 
of  voting  as  they  think  proper  on  this  subject.     I  for  my 
part,  am  not  afraid  to  trust  the  people  upon  any  subject. 
I  believe  in  the  very  fundamental  principle  of  our  republic, 
"that  the  people  are  capable  of  self-government,"  and  act- 
ing now  under  that  belief,  I  am  most  clearly  in  favor  of 
submitting   the  constitution    again    for   their   approval    or 
rejection.     If  sir,  the  vote  we  are  about  to  give  would  bind 
the  people  in  any  particular,  or  should  in  the  very  slightest 
degree  commit  them,  I  for  one,  and  I  know  it  is  the  feehng 
of  a  large  majority  of  this   House,  would  most   heartily 
repudiate  any  such  measure.     But  this  vote  we  are  about 
to  give,  will  neither  bind  them,  or  commit  them  in  favor  of, 
or  against  this  constitution,  but  give  them  sir,  only  the  right 
to  act  as  freemen  and  as  becomes  men  who  have  the  best 
interests  of  the  Territory  at  heart.     It  gives  them  the  pre- 
rogative of    American  citizens,  the  right  to  vote  as  they 
think  proper  as  to  the  constitution.     It  expands  not,  neither 
does  it  impair  in  the  very  remotest    degree    any  of  the 
natural  or  created   rights  of    man,  but  leaves  him  as  he 
always  should  be  left,  to  approach  the  polls  free,  unbiased 
and  untrammelled,  to  cast  his  vote  on  this  question  as  he 
chooses,  and  no  one  can  have  the  audacity  to  question  his 
motive,  or  take  to  task  any  freemen  for  acting  as  regards 
this  matter  according  to  the  dictates  of  his  own  conscience, 
and  as  becomes  a  Republican. 

If  giving  the  people  this  right  and  privilege  of  voting  on 
this  question  as  they  may  deem  proper,  is  "  revolutionary, 
unprecedented,  and  is  exercising  an  unheard  of  power," 
then,  sir,  all  I  can  say  is,  that  the  gentlemen  on  the  nega- 


speech  of  Mr.  Wilson.  301 

tive  of  this  question,  are  totally  and  directly  at  war  with  the 
genius  of  our  institutions,  and  all  authorities  and  writings 
of  our  most  distinguished  statesmen  and  the  great  lights  of 
jurisprudence  which  have  come  down  to  us  from  past  ages. 
All  Americans  agree  in  general  terms,  that  the  sovereignty 
resides  in  the  people.  This  sir,  is  the  language  of  our  con- 
stitutions, our  bills  of  rights  and  our  legal  formulas,  and  all 
must  agree,  that  it  is  the  right  of  the  people  to  change, 
alter  or  abolish  any  form  of  government  at  their  pleasure. 
This  right  of  the  people,  is  an  inherent  and  time  honored 
privilege,  descending  to  us  as  one  of  our  sacred  birthrights. 
It  is  also  no  difference  how  the  people  express  that  right. 
They  may  either  demand  it  of  their  servants  in  their  legis- 
lative capacity,  or  they  may  meet  in  their  sovereign  mass 
meetings,  and  there  proceed  to  carry  out  their  wishes,  and 
so  it  is  a  majority  of  the  people  who  move  in  the  matter, 
their  proceedings  cannot,  under  any  possible  circumstances 
be  regarded  in  any  other  light  than  binding,  legal  and 
sovereign. 

We  have  a  multitude  of  authorities  on  this  subject  and 
we  could  detain  you  until  to-morrow  reading  them,  always 
taking  it  for  granted  that  the  large  majority  of  Represen- 
tatives here  are  entirely  identified  with  the  people,  and  most 
clearly  reflect  their  known  wishes  and  sentiments,  and  being 
their  servants,  are  bound  to  obey  what  they  conceive  and 
know  to  be  the  wants  of  their  sovereigns.  We  might  com- 
mence at  the  Declaration  of  Independence  itself,  which 
clearly  «fe  explicitly  says,  speaking  of  the  rights  of  man, 
"that  to  secure  these  rights,  governments  are  instituted 
among  men,  deriving  their  just  powers  from  the  consent  of 
the  governed,"  and  also,  "it  is  the  right  of  the  people  to  alter 
or  abolish  it,  and  to  institute  new  governments,  laying  its 
foundations  on  such  principles,  and  organizing  its  powers 
in  such  form,  as  to  them  may  seem  most  likely  to  effect 
their  safety  and  happiness." 


302  Constitution  of  1844. 

Now  the  question  naturally  arises,  "do  a  majority  of  the 
people  desire  a  change  of  government?"  We  in  the  affirm- 
ative of  this  question  reply,  that  they  do,  and  we  back  that 
assertion  by  a  large  and  triumphant  majority  of  the  votes 
of  the  people  more  than  a  year  ago,  while  the  feeling  and 
ability  to  support  a  state  government  has  steadily  been  on 
the  increase.  Since  the  year  1838,  this  question  of  state 
government  has  been  in  constant  agitation.  The  first 
time  it  was  submitted  it  was  lost  by  a  large  majority. 

At  the  session  of  43  and  44  the  Legislature  of  this  Ter- 
ritory passed  a  law  submitting  the  question  of  state  govern- 
ment to  the  people  in  April.  As  we  have  already  stated, 
the  people  at  that  time  decided  by  an  overwhelming  vote  in 
favor  of  a  slate  government.  That  decision  remains  unre- 
versed. If  then,  as  we  presume  and  no  one  can  deny,  that 
the  proceedings  were  legal,  and  the  vote  upon  state  gov- 
ernment was  a  fair  and  honest  expression  of  a  large 
majority  of  the  people  and,  supposing  that  as  many  changes 
have  taken  place  in  favor  of  state  government,  as  there  has 
against  it,  it  would  be  bad  policy,  and  retrograding  instead 
of  advancing,  to  now  re-submit  a  question  which  has  been 
once  fairly  decided.  Again,  in  making  another  constitu- 
tion, there  would  be  an  additional  expense  of,  at  the  least 
calculation,  from  twenty  to  thirty  thousand  dollars,  and  the 
result  would,  in  all  human  probability  be,  the  re-enacting 
of  a  similar  instrument,  will  like  powers,  privileges  and 
immunities.  In  the  framing  of  a  constitution  it  is  impossible 
to  suit  every  party  and  to  set  its  sail  to  catch  every  passing 
breeze.  Its  provisions  must  of  necessity  be  permanent  and 
its  principles  fixed.  This  sir,  is  the  reason  why  constitu- 
tions throughout  the  land  have  been  so  hard  to  adopt.  And 
again,  people  are  apt  to  pick  out  a  few  defects  in  a  consti- 
tution, which  they  make  a  complete  stumbling  block  to 
overwhelm  and  crush  its  many  virtues  and  sterling  prin- 
ciples, which  go  to  secure  to  man  his  many  invaluable 
rights. 


speech  of  Mr.  Wilson,  303 

But  sir,  the  advocates  of  another  convention  declare  that 
public  opinion  has  changed  so  much  as  regards  State  Gov- 
ernment, as  to  require  that  another  vote  should  be  taken 
for  or  against  a  convention,  and  in  support  of  this,  they 
point  triumphantly  to  the  fact  of  the  U.  S.  Marshall  paying 
all  the  expenses  of  our  courts.  How  long  I  would  ask  these 
gentlemen  have  they  the  assurance  that  this  will  be  con- 
tinued? It  is,  sir,  nothing  more  than  a  mere  decision  of  an 
ex-Secretary  of  the  Treasury, — Hable  to  be  reversed  by  the 
present  new  officer  at  any  time,  and  for  proof  we  point  you 
to  the  fact,  that  two  successive  Secretaries  never  have 
scarcely  been  known  to  coincide  in  any  decisions  as  regards 
our  Territorial  business.  Again  Sir,  Congress  has  more 
than  once  by  their  committee  of  Ways  and  Means,  have 
had  it  under  serious  consideration  to  go  back  to  the  old 
Territorial  form  of  doing  business,  which  was  in  use  until 
1836,  viz.,  that  making  the  Territories  pay  their  own  Legis- 
lative and  judicial  expenses.  Take  in  connexion  with  this, 
the  facts  that  we  have  more  than  a  year  proclaimed  to  the 
world  that  we  are  fully  competent  to  take  care  of  ourselves, 
and  the  very  last  Congress  was  so  reluctant  to  grant  the 
appropriation  for  the  expenses  of  the  fiscal  year  of  1846, 
that  it  was  only  by  the  perseverance  and  ability  of  our 
worthy  Delegate,  and  his  assurance  that  it  would  most 
probably  be  the  last  time  that  Congress  would  have  the 
opportunity  of  acting  liberal  towards  the  Territory  of 
Iowa,  that  the  appropriation  was  obtained.  Again  sir,  in 
connexion  with  this.  Congress  will  be  fully  aware  that  it 
was  but  the  mere  question  of  boundary  that  caused  the 
rejection  of  the  Constitution,  from  the  very  fact  that  our 
leading  Journals  throughout  the  Territory  were  most  san- 
guine in  their  anticipations  that  the  constitution  would  most 
certainly  be  adopted,  and  one  of  the  principal  opposition 
papers  in  the  Territory  had  ceased  its  attacks  upon  the 
merits  of  the  constitution,  with  almost  the  tacit  acknowl- 


304  Constitution  of  1844.. 

edgement    that    the    constitution    was    popular    with    its 
friends.      This  was  the  situation  of   the  constitution  until 
a  few    days    prior   to   the    election,  when    the  news  sud- 
denly burst  upon  the  ears   of  an  astonished  people,  that 
Congress   had   cut   off   the   domain    of   the   Territory  of 
Iowa,  and  reduced  our  size  to  almost  half  of  the  original 
boundaries   proposed    by  the    convention.       Here    was    a 
dilemma  from  which  its  fondest  friends  could  not  extricate 
it, — some  contended  that  the  adoption  of  the  constitution 
would  most  certainly  fix  forever  upon  the  people  bound- 
aries that  they  did  not  wish,  that  they  did  not  understand, 
and  had  not  time  prior  to  the  election  to  investigate.     This 
point  then,  the  enemies   of  the    constitution    immediately 
rallied  upon,  and  brought   to   bear   all  their    artillery  and 
every  description  of  stories  were  hawked  about  to  induce 
the  people  to  vote  against  the  constitution.     It  was  in  such 
a  perfect  state  of  utter  confusion  that  no  two  persons  could 
scarcely  be  found  who  could  agree  precisely  as  to  what 
effect  the  adoption  of  the  constitution  would  have.     This 
was  the  state  of  affairs  when  the  election  came  on,  only 
"  confusion  had  grown  infinitely  worse  confounded,"  and  I 
appeal  to  every  gentleman  in  this  House,  if  what  I  have 
asserted  is  not  true,  and  also  that  many  hundreds  of  persons 
who  were  not  only  anxious  but  very  desirous  for  a  State 
Government,  were  compelled  to  vote  against  this  instru- 
ment on  account  of  its  unfortunate  situation. — The  question 
of  boundaries  was  the  only  rallying  cry  that  pervaded  the 
Territory,  and  met  the  friends  of  the  Constitution  at  every 
turn  on  the  day  of  election.     I  ask  then  is  it  any  wonder 
that  under   the    peculiar   and    overwhelming   turn   affairs 
had  taken  that  seemed  as  if  all  things  under  the  sun  had 
combined  to  impede  and  defeat  the  constitution.''     Clogs, 
impediments,  objections   and    embarrassments   arose   and 
increased  at  every  action.     Is  it  any  wonder  that  it  was 
defeated?  or  rather  would  it  not  almost  have  been  a  miracle 


Sfeech  of  Mr.  Wilson.  305 

if  the  constitution  laboring  under  the  incubus  or  evil  genius 
that  seemed  to  hover  over,  or  vampire  like  to  fasten  itself 
upon  it,  and  to  suck  its  vitality  from  the  association  of 
unfortunate  and  unforeseen  circumstances  that  clung  to  it 
like  "  the  poisoned  shirt  of  Nessus,"  and  wrapt  in  its  death- 
hke  embrace  all  the  fond  anticipations  of  throwing  off  a 
Territorial  form  of  government,  and  taking  our  place  amidst 
the  bright  constellations  that  now  bedeck  our  political  fir- 
mament. 

The  majority  of  this  House  have  been  taunted  with  the 
sneer  that  we  could  not  justify  this  measure  upon  any  other 
plea  than  that  we  were  "  Progressive  Democrats."  Sir, 
this  sneer  has  no  terror  to  me,  and  gentleman  can  style  me 
if  they  choose,  and  I  boast  of  being  a  "  Progressive  Demo- 
crat," &  hope  always  to  keep  up  with  the  intelligence  and 
improvements  of  the  age,  profiting  by  experience,  in  prefer- 
ence to  being  an  old-fashioned  Federalist,  wrapt  up  in  the 
obsolete,  repudiated  and  impracticable  notions  of  by-gone 
ages,  which  in  this  world  of  all  things  alone,  stands  still, 
or  rather  retrogrades  in  its  blind  belief,  that  the  less  power 
that  is  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  people  the  better,  while  the 
liberties  of  Man  and  Democracy,  hand  in  hand,  go  on  ful- 
filling a  higher  and  holier  destiny,  and  progressing  in  the 
acquisition  of  more  power  to  the  masses,  and  securing  to 
man  more  of  his  inalienable  rights,  and  inspiring  and  nerv- 
ing him  to  higher  and  holier  aspirations.  These  certainly 
must  have  been  the  feehngs  of  that  immortal  apostle  of 
Democracy,  Jefferson,  when  he  said  that  "  //  is  not  only  the 
right,  but  the  duty  of  those  on  the  stage  of  action  to  change 
the  laws  and  institutions  of  government  to  keep  -pace  with  the 
progress  of  knowledge,  the  light  of  science,  and  the  ameliora- 
tion of  society.  Nothing  is  to  he  considered  unchangeable,  hut  the 
inherent  and  inalienable  rights  of  man.''"'  If  to  act  in  unison 
with  some  of  the  best  names  and  purest  principles  that 
stand  high  upon  the  roll  of  fame,  and  secure  to  mankind 

20 


3o6  Constitution  of  i8^/f.. 

their  inalienable  rights,  be  made  the  object  of  sneers,  for 
my  part,  I  would  ask  no  more  glorious  ridicule,  and  every 
taunt  I  would  consider  the  highest  meed  of  praise,  that 
could  possibly  be  lavished  upon  me. 

This  question  of  submitting  the  constitution  is  but  another 
way  of  obtaining  the  wishes  of  the  people  in  regard  to  State 
Government.  In  support  of  this  fact,  I  will  venture  to  say, 
that  few  from  among  the  many  votes  that  will  be  cast  for 
the  constitution,  will  embrace  any  that  are  opposed  to  a 
state  government.  Then  sir,  the  question  resolves  itself 
into  a  small  space  or  into  a  nut  shell,  "  Have  the  -pea fie  the 
right  to  a  change  of  government? — and  shall  this  Legisla- 
ture give  them  the  opportunity  of  voting  on  this  change^  by 
causing  polls  to  be  opened  in  each  township  or  precinct 
throughout  the  Territory  f"* 

Have  the  people  the  right  to  a  change  of  government? 
Having  shewn  clearly  as  we  think  that  the  people  have 
decided  in  favor  of  a  state  government,  and  that  decision  is 
unreversed,  we  contend  now,  sir,  it  is  only  a  mere  matter 
of  form  that  now  divides  the  two  parties  on  this  floor.  The 
very  moment  we  acknowledge  the  right  of  the  people  to 
self-government,  we  give  them  full,  ample,  and  complete 
jurisdiction  over  the  whole  subject.  They  then  become 
above  all  other  the  legal  authority  to  frame,  alter,  and 
amend  the  constitution  and  the  only  ultimate  tribunal  to 
remodel  government.  The  people  then  are  sovereign,  and 
in  this  country  the  undoubted  source  of  all  power, — they 
are  scarcely  bound  by  mere  forms  in  their  onward  and 
upward  march — no  human  tribunal  has  jurisdiction  over 
them,  and  they  are  circumscribed  by  no  laws  but  those  of 
justice,  and  answerable  only  at  the  bar  of  the  Supreme 
Ruler  of  the  universe.  The  people  may  if  they  see  fit,  act 
through  the  medium  of  legislative  forms  and  edicts;  and  as 
we  have  said,  that  they  are  the  ultimate  tribunal,  they 
reserve  to  themselves  (as  we  now  propose  to  give  them)  the 


speech  of  Mr.    Wilson.  307 

right  to  either  accept  or  reject,  as  may  seem  to  them  best 
from  a  full  view  of  all  the  facts  and  circumstances.  Where 
there  are  suitable  prescribed  forms  and  modes  for  forming 
or  amending  constitutions,  such  as  will  give  full  scope  and 
effect  to  the  popular  will,  it  is  a  general  custom  throughout 
the  Union  sanctioned  by  the  wisdom  and  experience  of  all 
the  States  in  the  confederacy,  to  act  through  such  forms. 
In  some  States  they  amend  their  Constitutions  by  their 
Legislatures,  but  most  generally  by  calling  Conventions. 
It  will  be  found  much  the  most  convenient  to  act  through 
their  Legislatures  if  they  can,  and  in  the  present  instance 
where  the  people's  wishes  have  been  fully  consulted,  and 
their  clearly  expressed  demands  thwarted  by  a  body  in 
which  they  are  only  represented  by  a  voice,  without  the 
privilege  of  voting,  it  would  be  absurd  and  ridiculous,  to  say 
that  that  people  should  not  have  the  privilege  of  express- 
ing their  views  free  from  all,  or  any  extraneous  circum- 
stances upon  the  merits  and  boundaries  of  the  instrument 
that  was  framed  by  their  servants  and  representatives.  It 
is  a  palpable  absurdity,  to  declare  the  people  to  possess  an 
inherent  right  to  alter,  abolish,  and  institute  governments, 
and  then  to  deny  them  the  exercise  of  this  right  except  at 
the  pleasure  of  a  minority? 

Governments  are  but  the  agents,  and  not  the  masters  of 
the  people — they  are,  or  should  be,  mere  instruments  for 
the  elevation  and  advancement  of  mankind.  This  is  all  we 
claim  as  the  friends  of  this  Constitution,  and  in  doing  so, 
we  claim  no  power  that  is  not  involved  in  the  formation  of 
this  government,  and  not  recognized  by  its  advocates.  It 
is  in  the  discussion  of  such  a  question  as  this,  that  a  refer- 
ence to  the  writings  and  the  principles  of  many  distinguished 
statesmen,  is  not  only  necessary  to  shew  us  the  intention 
and  design  of  our  government,  but  also  to  illustrate  to  us 
the  tendency  of  our  institutions,  and  to  define  their  views 
as   to   the   power    of   the   people,  either   acting   in   their 


^o8  Constitution  of  1844. 

sovereign  capacities,  or  by  their  delegated  agents,  to 
abolish  or  remodel  their  form  of  government. 

The  constitution  of  the  United  States  was  objected  to  on 
the  ground  that  the  convention  which  framed  it  had  no 
legal  authority,  but  it  was  justified  by  Mr.  Madison,  who 
said  "  that  forms  ought  to  give  way  to  substance;  that  a 
rigid  adherence  to  forms  in  such  cases,  would  render  nominal 
and  nugatory  the  transcendent  and  precious  right  of  the 
people  to  abolish  or  alter  their  government;"  that  no  ill- 
timed  scruples,  no  zeal  for  adhering  to  ordinary  forms, 
were  anywhere  to  be  seen,  except  in  those  who  wish  to 
indulge  under  these  masks,  their  secret  enmity  to  the  sub- 
stance contended  for. ^"^  Rawle,  an  able  commentator  on  the 
constitution,  says:  "The  best  constitution  that  can  be 
framed  with  the  most  anxious  deliberation  that  can  be 
bestowed  upon  it,  may,  in  practice,  be  found  imperfect  and 
inadequate  to  the  best  interests  of  society.  Alterations  and 
amendments  then  become  desirable.  The  people  retain — 
the  people  cannot  perhaps  divest  themselves  of — the  power 
to  make  such  alterations.  A  moral  power,  equal  to  and  of 
the  same  nature  with  those  who  made,  can  alone  destroy  it. 
The  laws  of  one  legislature  may  be  repealed  by  another 
legislature,  and  the  power  to  repeal  them  cannot  be  with- 
held by  the  power  that  enacted  them.  So  the  people  may, 
on  the  same  principle,  at  any  time,  alter  or  abolish  the  con- 
stitution they  have  formed.  This  has  been  frequently  and 
peaceably  done  by  several  of  the  States  since  1776,  If  a 
particular  mode  of  affecting  such  alterations  has  been 
agreed  upon,  it  is  most  convenient  to  adhere  to  it,  but  it  is 
not  exclusively  binding."     Rawle  on  the  Constitution. 

Judge  Wilson,  in  his  published  writings  declares  that — 
"  the  -pecrple  may  change  the  constitution  whenever  and  how- 
ever they  f  lease.  This  is  a  right  of  which  no  positive  insti- 
tution can  deprive  them." 

It  has  been  truly  said  by  Milton,  "  they  that  shall  boast, 


S^peech  of  Mr,  Wilson,  309 

as  we  do,  to  be  a  free  nation,  and  not  have  in  themselves 
the  power  to  remove,  or  to  abolish  any  governor,  supreme 
or  subordinate,  with  the  government  itself  upon  urgent 
causes,  may  please  their  fancy  with  a  ridiculous  and  painted 
freedom,  fit  to  cozen  babies;  but  one  indeed  under  tyranny 
and  servitude;  as  wanting  that  power,  which  is  the  root  and 
source  of  all  liberty,  to  dispose  and  economize  in  the  land 
which  God  hath  given  them,  as  masters  of  family  in  their 
own  house  and  free  inheritance.  Without  which,  natural 
and  essential  power  of  a  free  nation,  though  bearing  high 
their  heads,  they  can,  in  due  esteem,  be  thought  no  better 
than  slaves  and  vassals  born,  in  the  tenure  and  occupation 
of  another  inheriting  lord." 

Dr.  Price,  in  his  celebrated  essay  on  civil  liberty,  says, 
"  all  civil  government,  as  far  as  can  be  denominated  free, 
is  the  creature  of  the  people.  It  originated  with  them.  It 
is  conducted  under  their  direction;  and  has  in  view  nothing 
but  their  happiness.  All  its  different  forms  are  no  more 
than  so  many  different  modes  in  which  they  choose  to 
direct  their  affairs,  and  to  secure  the  enjoyment  of  their 
rights." 

Mr.  Speaker — I  could  go  on  and  quote  authority  after 
authority  upon  this  point,  but  I  conceive  it  is  absolutely 
unnecessary  to  trespass  any  longer  upon  the  time  and 
patience  of  the  House,  in  sustaining  it,  as  I  challenge  gen- 
tlemen on  the  negative  of  this  question  to  take  up  these 
authorities. 

The  writings  of  all  the  men  whose  fame  is  a  common 
legacy  go  to  substantiate  and  strengthen  the  position  we 
take  as  the  advocates  of  this  measure.  Then  admit  if  you 
please  by  courtesy  or  for  argument  sake,  that  the  submis- 
sion of  this  constitution  will  be  irregular  and  informal,  then 
the  manner  of  submitting  this  constitution  will  be  precisely 
similar  to  the  way  in  which  the  constitution  of  the  U.  States 
was  submitted.     And  who  will  say  that  that  instrument  if 


3IO  Constitution  of  1844. 

the  proceedings  prior  to  its  adoption  were  even  irregular 
and  informal  is  not  binding?  It  is  a  notorious  fact,  that  the 
members  of  the  convention  which  framed  the  constitution  of 
the  United  States  were  elected  merely  to  amend  the  articles 
of  the  confederacy,  but  instead  of  amending,  they  went 
to  work  and  framed  an  entire  new  constitution,  which  was 
to  be  considered  as  ratified  by  the  votes  of  only  nine  of  the 
States.  This  step  was  taken  in  defiance  of  the  articles  of 
the  old  constitution  which  expressly  declared  that  no  altera- 
tion should  "  at  any  time  hereafter  be  made  in  any  of  them, 
unless  such  alteration  be  agreed  to  in  Congress,  and  be 
afterwards  confirmed  by  the  Legislature  of  every  State." 
These  restrictions  were  wholly  set  at  naught.  In  establish- 
ing the  constitution,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  said,  "  the  people  exercised  their  own  rights,  and 
their  own  sovereignty;"  and  conscious  of  the  plentitude  of 
it,  they  declared,  with  becoming  dignity,  "  we  the  people 
of  the  United  States  do  ordain  and  establish  this  constitu- 
tion;" and  it  was  established,  not  by  virtue  of  any  act  of 
Congress,  but  by  virtue  of  the  assent  of,  and  adoption  by, 
the  people  of  the  United  States.  Its  adoption  was  pro- 
nounced legal  by  the  first  men  of  the  nation  and  so  well  is 
that  principal  settled,  that  gentlemen  to  sustain  the  negative 
of  this  question  wiU  be  compelled  by  party  of  reasoning  to 
commence  an  indiscriminate  warfare  upon  that  sacred  old 
charter  of  our  liberties.  I  would  ask,  what  is  it,  sir,  that 
give  to  a  constitution  the  validity  and  binding  force  of  law? 
It  is  not  the  manner  in  which,  nor  the  persons  by  whom, 
the  convention  which  framed  it  is  called.  The  highest 
tribunal  of  our  nation  fixed  by  that  when  it  said  that  was 
the  the  assent  of,  and  the  adoption  of  it  by  the  -peo-ple.  This, 
sir,  is  the  great  essential  and  controlHng  point.  All  that 
precedes  is  of  minor  importance.  Mr.  Madison  in  speaking 
of  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  said  truly  that  its 
adoption  by  the  people  would  "  blot  out  all  antecedent  errors 


speech  of  Mr.  Wilson.  311 

and  irregularities.'*''  Here  is  proof  precisely  in  point,  and 
settles  at  once  the  issue  and  I  would  really  like  to  hear  an 
attempt  to  refute  this,  we  as  the  advocates  of  this  constitu- 
tion most  readily  adopt  Mr.  Madison's  declaration  and  pro- 
claim to  the  world  that  if  we  know  that  if  the  people  adopt 
the  constitution,  that  it  will  be  binding,  and  that  such  adop- 
tion would  "  blot  all  antecedent  errors  and  iregularities.'* 

Congress  gave  its  sanction  to  the  same  doctrine,  in  the 
case  of  Michigan,  when  the  people  of  that  State,  acting  in 
their  original  capacit}'^,  without  the  intervention  of  its  Legis- 
lature, and  even  in  opposition  to  the  different  action  of  the 
Legislature  accepted  the  conditions  on  which  it  was 
received  into  the  Union.  In  North  Carohna  also,  the  same 
doctrine  was  appealed  to  some  years  since  by  the  people  of 
the  western  part  of  that  State,  who  were  about  to  take 
possession  of  the  actual  government  gave  way.  Messrs. 
Benton's  &  Buchanan's  speeches  upon  the  right  of  the 
people  of  the  State  of  Michigan  to  take  such  a  step,  I  need 
not  here  stop  to  quote,  as  they  will  be  found  in  most  of  the 
Democratic  papers  of  the  Territory. 

In  the  Virginia  convention,  held  1829  and  30  to  frame 
a  constitution,  the  resolution  was  introduced  "  to  provide  a 
way  in  which  future  amendments  should  be  made  therein," 
and  it  was  rejected,  on  the  ground  that  the  people  would 
have  the  right  to  make  such  amendments  without  any  such 
constitutional  provisions.  The  vote  stood  25  yeas  to  68 
nays.  Among  the  latter  are  the  names  of  James  Madison, 
Chief  Justice  Marshall,  John  Randolph  and  other  distin- 
guished statesmen  of  that  state.  Randolph  said  it  was 
impossible,  by  any  "  scribbling  on  parchment,"  to  prevent 
future  alterations.  "  By  what  spell,  by  what  formula,  are 
you  going  to  bind  the  people  to  all  future  time?  Quis  cus- 
todeit  custodes?  The  days  of  Lycurgus  are  gone  by,  when 
he  could  swear  the  people  not  to  alter  the  constitution  until 
he  should  return." 


312  Constitution  of  184.4. 

If  we  are  to  be  styled  "Progressive  Democrats,"  "de- 
structives," "  agrarians,"  or  any  of  the  harsh  terms  that 
fill  up  the  Federal  vocabulary  of  the  present  day,  for  advo- 
cating the  known  rights  of  freemen,  and  principles  that  are 
in  themselves  the  very  bulwark  and  foundation  of  our 
Republic,  then  sir  we  need  ask  no  more  glorious  persecu- 
tion, and  for  my  part  I  look  upon  the  man  who  would 
dwarf  the  rights  of  an  American  to  mere  senseless  forms 
without  regard  to  substance,  as  best  calculated  for  the  sub- 
ject and  meridian  of  a  despotism,  than  this  free  and  favored 
land,  where  we  act  upon  the  glorious  motto  that  the  voice 
of  the  people  is  the  law  of  the  land. 

The  gentlemen  of  the  negative  of  this  question  have 
prated  loud  and  long  about  our  want  of  precedent  in  thus 
submitting  this  constitution  to  the  people.  Now,  sir,  for 
my  part,  I  think  we  have  produced  some,  but  if  they  are 
not  inclined  to  receive  them  I  candidly  confess  that  I  am 
no  great  stickler  for  precedent.  I  regard  it  when  wrong 
as  a  hoary  headed  error  coming  down  to  us  from  past  ages, 
with  all  the  binding  force  of  long  established  custom.  I 
regard  precedent  only  as  binding  when  founded  on  justice 
&  sound  policy.  What  might  be  expedient  in  the  forma- 
tion of  some  governments,  affected  as  they  must  of  neces- 
sity be,  by  the  circumstances  and  peculiarities  of  the  people, 
owing  to  the  diversity  of  pursuits,  education,  &c.  might 
under  different  auspices,  prove  abortive,  destructive  and 
subversive  of  the  very  ends  of  governments.  This  is  the 
error  that  blindly  adhering  to,  and  following  precedent 
would  entail.  Communities  in  forming  governments  for 
ages  yet  to  come,  should  follow  no  precedent,  except  such 
as  under  a  full  view  of  all  the  circumstances,  and  according 
to  their  peculiarities  would  be  deemed  best,  always  leaving 
themselves  entirely  free  to  pursue  the  path  pointed  out  by 
the  light  of  reason  and  justice.  Sir,  we  have  no  precedent 
for  our  Republican  form  of  government — Declaration  of 


speech  of  Mr.  Wilson.  313 

Independence — our  Constitution,  and  the  precious  rights 
they  secure  to  man — or  the  many  privileges  we  as  Ameri- 
cans enjoy,  but  that  neither  impairs  our  claim  to  them,  or 
make  us  prize  them  less. 

Sir,  the  advocates  of  thi&  measure  are  anxious  to  have 
this  question  debated,  and  I  challenge  our  opponents  to  a 
discussion  of  it,  insisting  that  they  shall  take  up  the 
authorities  that  I  have  introduced,  expose  them  if  they  can, 
and  shew  wherein  they  are  not  applicable.  And  as  the 
Constitution  has  been  objected  to,  and  its  merits  dragged 
into  this  discussion,  I  dare  them  now  to  take  up  that  instru- 
ment, and  discuss  it  section  by  section,  and  article  by  article, 
and  I  for  one  am  ready  to  meet  them  upon  any  issue  or 
objection  to  it. 

I  for  one,  am  determined  that  the  negative  of  this  ques- 
tion shall  take  no  advantage  by  any  insinuations  that 
because  the  Democracy  have  a  large  majority  in  this  House, 
that  we  are  unwilling  to  hear  them.  From  day  to  day,  and 
hour  to  hour,  has  this  question  been  delayed  that  they 
might  bring  their  artillery  to  bear  upon  it,  and  for  my  part, 
I  will  sit  here  until  midnight,  sooner  than  any  gentleman 
shall  not  have  the  privilege  of  expressing  his  views  fully 
and  freely.  Such  has  been,  and  still  is  the  feeling  of  this 
House,  so  I  defy  gentlemen  to  convey  any  other  impress- 
ion to  the  people  of  this  Territory,  than  that  they  have  had 
the  greatest  latitude  allowed  in  this  discussion,  and  that  the 
subject  was  postponed  to  suit  their  own  pleasure.  I  return 
my  sincere  thanks  to  the  House,  for  intruding  so  long  upon 
their  time  and  patience. 

— Reprinted /ro?n  The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter,  Vol.  IV., 
No.  18,  June  11,  1845. 


III. 

DEBATES 

OF   THE 

CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION 

I 

OF 


1846 


Fragments  from 
The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter 


PROCEEDINGS 


OF 


THE  CONVENTION  OF  1846. 


Monday,  May  4TH,  1846. 

Mr.  Lowe,  having  received  a  majority  of  all  the  votes 
given,  was  declared  duly  elected  President  of  the  Conven- 
tion. He  was  then  conducted  to  the  chair  by  Messrs. 
Grant  and  Shelledy,  and  addressed  the  Convention  as 
follows : 

Gentlemen  of  the  Convention: — 

For  this  demonstration  of  your  kind  partiality  in  electing 
me,  without  solicitation  on  my  part,  to  a  place  so  honorable 
and  distinguished,  as  that  of  presiding  over  your  dehber- 
ations,  I  should  do  injustice  to  my  feelings  not  to  return 
you  my  sincere  thanks. 

The  Territorial  Legislature,  under  the  belief  that  the 
people  remained  unchanged  in  their  opinions  as  expressed 
at  the  polls,  upon  the  question  of  "  convention  or  no  con- 
vention," and  that  the  late  consitution  was  rejected  on  ac- 
count of  the  mutilation  and  reduction  of  our  boundaries  by 
Congress,  and  perhaps,  objectionable  features  in  the  con- 
stitution itself,  and  not  because  of  opposition  to  a  state  form 
of  government,  made  provision  at  once  for  the  election  of 
delegates  to  form  a  new  constitution ;  and  to  you  gentlemen, 
this  important  and  distinguished  trust  has  been  confided. 


320  Constitution  of  1846. 

By  the  rejection  of  the  constitution  lately  submitted,  the 
progress  of  the  territory  in  State  organization  has  been  re- 
tarded, but  the  evils  of  delay  seem  not  entirely  unmixed 
with  good;  for  in  the  mean  time  there  has  been  much  dis- 
cussion and  a  development  of  opinion,  which,  with  the  four 
new  constitutions  which  have  been  formed  in  the  states  and 
territories,  containing  new  provisions  in  accordance  with 
the  progress  of  the  age,  will  doubtless  contribute  much  in 
forming  a  constitution  for  Iowa  which  I  trust  will  be  found 
wiser  and  more  satisfactory,  in  proportion  to  the  more 
favorable  auspicies  under  which  you  are  assembled. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Bates,  the  convention  proceeded  to  the 
election  of  a  Secretary. 


Thursday,  May  7TH. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Goodrell,  article  No.  i — Preamble  and 
Boundaries  was  taken  from  the  table. 

Mr.  Olmstead  offered  as  an  amendment  a  full  description 
of  the  boundaries  defined  in  the  draft  of  a  constitution 
framed  in  Nov.  1844,  as  a  substitute  for  those  defined  in 
the  article  under  consideration. 


Friday,  May  8th. 

The  question  being  on  the  amendment  offered  by  Mr. 
Olmstead  on  yesterday.  Mr.  Saunders  offered  the  follow- 
amendment  to  the  amendment. 

"  Insert,  after  the  words, '  Calumet  river,'  the  following — 
"  Thence  up  the  middle  of  the  main  channel  of  the  same 
to  the  44th  deg.  of  North  Latitude;  thence  east  on  said 
44th  parallel  to  the  middle  of  the  main  channel  of  the  Mis- 
sissippi river,"  &c. 


Fragments  from  The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter.       321 

Mr.  Shelledy  advocated  this  amendment  at  some  length 
— stating  that  he  had  been  in  favor  of  a  still  more  southerly 
boundary  on  the  North,  and  had  offered  an  amendment  for 
the  adoption  of  the  43d  deg.,  but  had  been  induced  to  with- 
draw it.  He  alleged  that  it  was  inconsistent  in  the  people 
to  claim  any  more  territory  on  the  North,  and  made  some 
passages  at  Gen.  Dodge,  or  as  Mr.  S.  vouchsafed  in  this 
instance  to  style  him,  our  "  respected  Delegate  in  Congress." 

The  amendment  was  opposed  at  length  by  Messrs.  Lef- 
fler  and  Bates  in  opposition  to  the  amendment  and  in  favor 
of  adhering  to  the  St.  Peters  as  our  northern  boundary,  and 
to  the  entire  boundaries  of  the  old  constitution,  as  the  only 
ones  which  would  be  satisfactory  to  the  whole  people  of 
the  territory. 

After  some  further  remarks  by  Mr.  Saunders  in  favor  of 
his  amendment,  the  question  was  taken  on  its  adoption,  and 
decided  in  the  negative — yeas  3 — nays  27. 

The  question  then  recurring  on  Mr.  Olmstead's  amend- 
ment, it  was  adopted — yeas  22 — nays  8. 


AN  ELECTIVE  JUDICIARY— INTERESTING  DEBATE 
IN  THE  CONVENTION. 

On  the  7th  inst.  the  report  of  the  Judiciary  Committee 
being  under  consideration,  Mr.  Bowie  offered  the  following 
amendment : 

"  The  Governor  shall  nominate,  and  by  and  with  the 
advice  and  consent  of  two  thirds  of  the  Senate,  shall  ap- 
point the  Judges  of  the  Supreme  and  District  Courts." 

To  which  Mr.  Richman  offered  an  amendment  provid- 
ing for  the  appointment  of  the  Supreme  Judges  for  life,  or 
during  good  behavior. 

Mr.  Bowie  spoke  at  some  length  in  support  of  his 
amendment.     He  said  he  would  not  deny  that  the  people 


322  Constitution  of  1846. 

were  competent  to  make  a  good  and  judicious  selection  of 
judges;  he  expressed  the  utmost  confidence  in  the  capacity 
of  the  people  to  choose  their  own  judicial  officers,  and 
believed  that  they  would  generally  select  the  men  best  fit- 
ted for  an  important  trust — but  predicated  his  opposition 
to  the  policy  upon  the  supposed  deleterious  effects  of  sub- 
jecting the  judicial  ermine  to  the  ordeal  of  the  popular 
vote  system. 

He  said  that  men  eminently  qualified  by  their  learning, 
integrity,  etc.  for  the  station  of  a  judge,  would  shrink  from 
the  public  scrutiny  which  would  be  directed  to  them  by 
becoming  candidates  before  the  people.  They  would 
cherish  an  unconquerable  repugnance  to  entering  the  field 
as  candidates  for  the  popular  suffrage,  and  would  consider 
it  degrading  or  highly  injurious  to  them,  ( we  do  not  recol- 
lect his  precise  term,)  to  have  their  names  presented  to  the 
people  for  an  office;  whereas  they  would  feel  highly  hon- 
ored by  an  appointment  from  the  Governor  and  confirma- 
tion by  the  Senate,  and  would  consequently  be  induced  to 
abandon  a  lucrative  practice  for  a  judicial  office  thus  con- 
ferred. 

We  are  not  able  to  say  whether  Mr.  B.  intended  to  be 
understood  as  speaking  "  by  authority  "  for  gentlemen  of 
the  green  bag  at  large,  in  saying  that  they  were  too  modest 
to  enter  the  political  arena,  and  in  representing  that  those 
who  stand  at  the  head  of  the  profession  would  consider  it 
highly  derogatory  to  their  characters,  to  ask  or  accept  an 
office  at  the  hands  of  the  people,  while  they  would  feel 
highly  honored  by  an  executive  appointment. — But  as  he 
belongs  to  the  cloth,  it  may  fairly  be  inferred  that  such  was 
his  intention.  We  will  venture  to  express  the  opinion, 
however,  that  he  would  more  consistently  have  sustained 
the  part  which  he  undertook,  and  would  have  represented 
this  excessively  modest  and  retiring  class  of  men  more  cred- 
itably had  he   contented  himself  with  representing  their 


Fragments  from  The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter.      323 

views  and  feelings,  without  assuming  to  speak  at  the  same 
time  for  the  people  at  large,  by  asserting  that  a  great 
majority  of  them  were  averse  to  exercising  the  prerogative 
of  choosing  their  own  judges. 

Mr.  Hoskins  made  some  appropriate  remarks  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  amendment,  and  in  support  of  the  report  of  the 
committee.  He  was  happy  to  hear  the  gentleman  from 
Desmoines  declare  his  confidence  in  the  capacity  of  the 
people  for  self  government.  He  had  conversed  much  with 
the  people  of  his  county  upon  the  subject — he  had  taken 
a  position  in  favor  of  electing  all  judicial  officers  while  can- 
vassing for  the  seat  which  he  now  holds — and  he  was  quite 
sure  that  a  large  majority  of  his  constituents  were  in  favor 
of  an  elective  judiciary,  and  would  not  readily  consent  to 
yield  to  any  other  power  a  prerogative  which  they  felt  fully 
competent  to  exercise,  and  which  they  knew  they  could 
exercise  more  advantageously  and  satisfactorily  than  it 
could  be  exercised  by  their  servants,  the  Governor  and 
Legislature. 

Mr.  Bissel  then  addressed  the  Convention  as  follows: 

Mr.  President — I  hope  the  amendment  will  not  prevail. 
I  do  not  think  the  arguments  of  the  gentleman  from  Des 
Moines  are  as  unanswerable  as  he  considers  them.  They 
are  substantially  the  same  that  have  been  used  at  all  times 
and  upon  all  occasions,  by  the  party  opposed  to  democratic 
principles  and  usages.  They  are  the  same  that  were  used 
by  the  men  and  the  party  who  were  opposed  to  our  national 
form  of  Government  more  than  fifty  years  ago. 

Sixty  years  ago  it  was  said,  that  if  the  people  in  their 
primary  capacity,  elected  their  executive  and  legislative 
functionaries,  these  officers  would  be  bad  men. — It  was  then 
contended  that  these  officers  ought  to  be,  and  act  entirely 
independent  of  the  popular  sentiment  of  the  times — that 
these  situations  should  be  filled  by  men  of  great  wealth,  and 
held  for  long  terms,  or  for  life;  so  that  the  legislators  and 


324  Constitution  of  184.6. 

rulers  of  the  people  might  be  entirely  independent  of  the 
people  themselves.  It  was  then  contended  that  if  the 
rulers  were  made  dependent  upon  the  people  for  the  tenure 
of  their  official  existence  there  would  be  neither  stability 
or  safety  in  our  institutions,  and  that  the  whole  country 
would  become  one  field  of  anarchy,  crime  and  confusion. 
I  ask  if  such  was  the  result?  No  sir,  not  at  all.  These 
officers  were  made  elective  by  the  people  at  short  intervals 
of  time;  and  our  organic  laws,  together  with  the  tendencies 
of  the  age,  have  made  them,  instead  of  rulers,  the  servants 
of  the  people. 

As  an  evidence  that  the  system  has  worked  well,  the 
people  of  our  own  country,  while  progressing  in  democratic 
principles  and  usages,  have  progressed  in  the  arts,  sciences, 
commerce,  agriculture  and  manufactures,  with  a  rapidity 
hitherto  unparalleled  in  the  annals  of  the  world. — Sir:  while 
the  people,  instead  of  augmenting  the  power  of  their  execu- 
tive and  legislative  agents,  have  been  progressively  with- 
drawing from  them  the  decisions  of  all  questions  which 
the}'  can  conveniently  decide  themselves  at  the  ballot  box, 
our  country  has  increased  in  wealth  and  happiness,  beyond 
the  most  sanguine  expectations  *  *  ♦  ♦* 

he  depends  for  the  security  of  his  property,  his  reputation, 
and  his  life,  but  he  must  decide  who  are  to  carry  those 
laws  into  execution.  These  important  trusts  he  is  willing 
to  confide  only  to  the  man  of  his  own  choice — men  whom 
he  knows  to  be  honest  and  capable — men  whose  highest 
incentives  to  action  are  their  convictions  of  duty.  But  the 
gentleman  tells  us  that,  notwithstanding  he  has  the  strongest 
and  most  abiding  confidence  in  the  wisdom  and  intelligence 
of  the  people,  he  fears  party  politicians  would  get  upon  the 
bench,  and  that  party  feelings  would  influence  them  in 
making  their  decisions.  Permit  me,  sir,  to  ask  that  gentle- 
man, and  every  gentleman  in  this  Convention,  how  many 

1  Paper  worn,  letters  blurred. 


Fragments  from  The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter.       325 

Judges  they  have  ever  known  appointed  in  any  way,  who 
have  not  been  party  politicians. 

But  there  is  another  argument  used  by  the  gentleman, 
which  requires  some  comments  here.  He  very  gravely 
tells  us  that  the  habits  and  associations  of  men  who  would 
make  good  Judges,  ( that  is  men  learned  in  the  law,)  are 
such  as  to  render  them  so  sensitively  modest,  that  they 
would  be  unwilling  to  enter  the  canvass — unwilling  to  have 
their  names  brought  before  the  people.  They  would  not 
wish  to  receive  the  office  in  that  way,  while  they  would  be 
proud  and  happy  to  have  it  conferred  by  executive  or  legis- 
lative power. 

Sir,  this  is  the  first  time  that  I  have  ever  understood  that 
lawyers  were  more  modest  than  other  men — it  is  an  asser- 
tion that  I  am  unwilling  to  believe  till  I  examine  the  evi- 
dence. If  this  be  the  fact,  why  did  not  the  modesty  of  the 
gentleman  deter  him  from  entering  the  canvass  for  a  seat  in 
this  convention?  And  I  would  ask  him  and  every  gentle- 
man here  to  tell  me  if  they  are  acquainted  with  any  eminent 
lawyers  who  have  not  already  been  before  the  people  for 
official  stations.  I  know  of  none  sir;  nor  do  I  believe  that 
there  are  any  so  excessively  modest  that  they  would  refuse 
to  accept  an  office  when  conferred  by  their  fellow  citizens, 
which  they  would  be  proud  to  receive  from  another  source. 
Such  a  refusal,  for  such  a  motive,  would  prove  the  man 
inimical  to  the  first  principle  of  our  government  and  institu- 
tions.— It  would  be  treating  with  contempt  the  voice  of  the 
people  legitimately  expressed  thro'  the  ballot  box,  which, 
when  so  expressed,  we  all  admit  to  be  the  supreme  law  of 
the  land. 

Sir,  public  opinion  is  the  only  test  of  the  character  of  a 
public  man — and  no  where  can  public  opinion  be  so  inde- 
pendently and  directly  expressed  as  at  the  ballot  box.  If 
our  Judges  are  to  be  appointed  by  the  Governor  and  Senate, 
they  will  be  very  likely  to  be  influenced  by  the  represen- 


326  Constitution  of  1846. 

tations  of  men  whose  only  wish  will  be,  to  secure  the  office 
for  their  favorite. 

Mr.  Dibble  made  a  few  remarks  upon  the  subject  of  the 
report.  He  was  in  favor  of  electing  the  District  Judges  by 
a  popular  vote;  but  inasmuch  as  the  Supreme  Judges  were 
to  constitute  a  court  for  the  correction  of  errors  in  decisions 
of  the  lower  court,  he  preferred  some  other  mode  for  their 
selection.  In  case  of  the  report  being  sustained  in  its  pres- 
ent shape,  Mr.  Dibble  said  he  would  propose  a  provision 
for  a  special  election  to  be  held  for  the  judges,  that  they 
might  be  removed  as  far  as  possible  from  all  improper 
political  influence.  If  the  gentleman  from  Desmoines 
would  offer  an  amendment  providing  for  the  election  of  the 
Supreme  Judges  by  a  joint  ballot  vote  of  the  General 
Assembly,  he  would  support  it  in  preference  to  the  report 
in  its  present  shape. 

Messrs.  Bowie  and  Richman  spoke  at  length  in  reply  to 
the  arguments  adduced  by  Messrs.  Bates  and  Bissell.  The 
former  reiterated  his  declaration  of  the  utmost  confidence 
in  the  capacity  of  the  people,  to  select  good  judicial  officers; 
but  endeavored  to  prove  that  the  system  was  impracticable. 

The  general  tendency  of  Mr.  Richman 's  remarks  in  sup- 
port of  the  amendment,  and  of  his  amendment  thereto, 
were  to  the  effect  that  the  system  of  an  elective  Judiciary 
was  an  innovation  and  a  dangerous  experiment.  That 
safety  was  only  to  be  found  in  diligently  pursuing  the  foot 
steps  of  our  ancestors.  He  deprecated  the  idea  that  which 
prevails  to  such  an  extent,  that  the  present  generation  of 
men  are  wiser  and  better  qualified  for  devising  a  system  of 
government,  than  their  forefathers,  and  thought  it  should 
be  conceded  that  •' our  fathers  know  something''''  as  well  as 
ourselves. 

Mr.  R.  said  that  our  government  was  not  a  purely  dem- 
ocratic one;  but  Hke  all  Republics  which  had  preceded  it, 
was  a  mixture  of  democracy  with  other  ingredients.     The 


Fragments  from  The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter.      327 

argument  intended  to  be  based  upon  this  position  was,  that 
it  was  neither  safe  nor  expedient  to  repudiate  the  mixture 
of  anti-repubHcanism  which  has  heretofore  been  incorpo- 
rated into  the  civil  codes  of  other  states,  and  to  some  extent, 
perhaps,  into  the  federal  constitution :  Or  in  other  words, 
that  the  anti-democratic  features  of  our  government  should 
be  venerated  and  prized  as  highly  conducive  to  the  public 
welfare,  and  that  it  would  be  dangerous  to  abolish  them. 

Mr.  Bissell  agreed  with  the  gentleman  from  Muscatine, 
that  all  Republics  which  have  preceded  ours  were  mixed 
with  other  ingredients  besides  democracy.  He  said  that 
this,  as  every  one  conversant  with  their  history  must  be 
aware,  was  the  cause  of  their  downfall.  Those  other  in- 
gredients became  too  strong  in  the  mixture  for  the  democ- 
racy. It  is  a  mixture  which  naturally  destroys  itself. 
Those  foreign  ingredients  are  at  enmity  with  the  genius  of 
free  institutions.  It  is  utterly  impossible  for  them  to  har- 
monize with  the  principles  of  democracy.  One  or  the 
other  will  ultimately  gain  the  ascendency,  and  destroys  its 
antagonistic  principles;  and  upon  the  issue  of  the  contest 
between  them  hangs  the  fate  of  all  republican  institutions. 

I  repeat,  sir,  that  those  foreign  ingredients  for  which  the 
gentleman  on  the  other  side  evince  such  undying  attach- 
ment, are  the  same  which  have  contributed  to  the  final 
overthrow  of  all  the  ancient  Republics.  We  may  mark 
their  decline  from  that  period  when  the  people  delegate 
*  *  *        In    this    way    their    servants    insidiously 

became  their  masters. 

Now,  sir,  we  want  as  little  of  these  other  ingredients 
mixed  with  the  democracy  of  our  government,  as  the  con- 
venience of  the  people  will  allow.  I  am  happy  to  hear 
those  gentlemen  declare  that  they  have  so  much  confidence 
in  the  people — that  they  have  no  doubt  of  the  people's 
capacity  to  select  their  officers,  the  highest  as  well  as  the 
lowest.     But  I  regret  very  much  to  say  that  their  conduct 


328  Constitution  of  184.6, 

does  not  square  with  this  declaration.  I  should  like,  of  all 
things,  to  see  their  practices  consistent  with  their  profes- 
sions; and  none  would  be  more  ready  to  do  them  justice — 
none  more  willing  to  concede  to  them  sincerity  and  purity 
of  motives  than  myself. 

Sir,  I  am  happy  to  know  that  the  day  has  gone  by,  when 
public  men  dare  to  say  that  they  doubt  the  capacity  of  the 
people  to  select  their  own  officers.  It  proves  that  the 
people  are  jealous  of  their  rights  and  of  their  sovereignty, 
and  that  they  will  not  permit  these  to  be  called  in  question. 
— The  cry  which  was  once  rife  throughout  this  land  that 
the  people  were  wholly  incompetent  to  the  exercise  of  sov- 
ereignty, has  subsided  into  a  faint  voice  against  the  prac- 
ticability and  expediency  of  a  full  and  unrestrained  exercise 
of  that  prerogative:  If,  then,  there  is  not  a  gentleman  on 
this  floor  who  dare  publicly  say  that  he  doubts  the  capacity 
of  the  people  to  elect  the  judges,  why  should  we  take  the 
right  from  them. 


Friday  Morning,  May  15TH. 

^  *  *  *  *  denies  to  the  people  the  right  to  alter, 
amend  or  abrogate  their  organic  law. — This  doctrine  of 
immutability  has  been  boldly  maintained  by  a  somewhat 
formidable  party,  we  are  aware,  with  reference  to  a  King's 
charter — a  fundamental  law  which  was  given  to  the  people 
of  a  state  by  crowned  head — but  we  were  not  prepared  to 
see  the  same  doctrine  advanced  with  reference  to  a  code  of 
laws  formed  by  the  people  themselves.  In  this  enlightened 
day,  were  it  not  for  the  record  which  we  have  before  us, 
the  fact  would  appear  quite  incredible.  But  the  yeas  and 
nays  have  been  recorded,  and  the  fact  will  be  handed  down 

1  Paper  mutilated. 


Fragments  from  The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter.       329 

to  posterity,  solemnly  attested  by  the  signatures  of  the 
President  and  Secretary,  that  five  sage  constitution  makers, 
by  their  votes,  deliberately  declared  the  code  which  they 
had  framed,  to  be  immutable,  above  the  reach  of  the  people 
and  forever  binding  upon  posterity. 


REMARKS  OF  MR.  MATSON  IN  THE  CONVENTION. 

The  amendment  offered  by  Mr.  Coop,  extending  the 
elective  franchise  to  foreigners,  after  a  probation  of  twelve 
months,  and  upon  declaring  their  intentions  to  become  cit- 
izens of  the  U.  States,  together  with  the  substitute  proposed 
by  Mr.  Tryon,  being  under  consideration,  Mr.  Matson  rose 
and  said: 

Mr.  President:  I  am  for  the  adoption  of  this  amend- 
ment. I  go  on  the  broad  ground  of  equal  rights.  It  mat- 
ters not  to  me  where  a  man  was  born,  provided  he  has  the 
heart  and  feelings  of  an  American.  It  is  enough  for  me,  to 
know  he  is  here — that  this  is  his  home — that  he  has  selected 
this  fair  spot  of  earth  for  his  residence — that  he  is  willing 
to  do  his  part  in  the  support  of  our  institutions,  and  to  de- 
fend the  rights  of  our  country.  I  say,  sir,  I  care  not  where 
he  was  born,  I  will  give  him  the  right  hand  of  fellowship — 
I  will  give  him  welcome  to  all  that  I  ask  for  myself — the 
right  of  a  citizen  of  Iowa.  This  country,  which  I  am  proud 
to  call  my  home,  shall,  as  far  as  I  am  able  to  bring  about 
the  result,  be  made  welcome  to  him. 

Mr.  Chairman,  let  us  divest  ourselves  of  all  prejudice 
and  view  this  subject  as  it  is.  Our  motto  should  be,  every- 
thing for  ^r/«^/]^/(?s,  nothing  for  man  or  party;  every  man 
should  be  ready  to  sacrifice  all  personal  feelings — all  party 
prejudices,  (if  he  have  any)  on  the  altar  of  public  good.  He 
should  thoroughly  purify  himself  and  render  his  own  bosom 


330  Constitution  of  1846. 

a.  fit  receptacle  for  the  spirit  of  liberty  to  dwell  in,  and  then 
he  will  be  ready  to  grant  to  others  what  he  asks  for  him- 
self. I  am  aware,  sir,  that  it  is  said  by  some  that  foreign- 
ers are  not  fit  to  vote  until  they  have  been  here  many 
years — that  they  cannot  understand  and  appreciate  the 
rights  of  freemen  in  this  country.  But,  sir,  I  am  inclined 
to  think  differently,  I  am  inclined  to  believe  they  know 
better  how  to  appreciate  the  inestimable  blessings  of  liberty 
than  we  do.  What,  I  ask,  has  induced  them  to  leave  their 
native  country  and  come  to  this?  Have  they  had  no  infor- 
mation of  this  land  of  Hberty?  Have  they  never  heard  of 
our  republican  institutions,  of  our  principles  of  equal  rights? 
Ah,  sir,  they  have  heard  of  all  this,  and  their  hearts  have 
been  here  long  before  they  have  been  able  to  get  here 
themselves.  Many  of  them  have  labored  for  years,  and 
saved  every  _;^/cthey  could  possibly  spare  and  keep  soul  and 
body  together,  before  they  could  get  money  enough  to  fetch 
them  here.  Yes,  sir,  oppression  has  driven  them  from  their 
native  country  and  they  have  come  here  prepared  to  prize 
liberty.  They  bring  their  all — their  wives  and  their  chil- 
dren, and  experience  has  proved  that  they  are  among  the 
very  first  to  rally  in  defense  of  this  land  of  their  choice — and 
shall  -we,  here,  who  have  never  tasted  of  the  bitter  cup  of 
oppression — who  have  always  dwelt  in  this  land  of  liberty — 
who  pride  ourselves  upon  being  born  republicans,  and  boast 
of  our  principles  of  equal  rights — I  say,  sir,  shall  ive  deal 
out  an  injustice  to  them?  I  trust  not — I  hope  to  see  this 
clause  adopted  into  our  constitution,  placing  them  on  an 
equality  with  ourselves.  Let  not  this  sacred  instrument, 
this  soul  of  our  body  poHtics,  be  blackened  by  any  clause 
that  shall  do  injustice  to  any  set  of  men, 

Sir,  I  have  not  taken  up  much  time  in  this  convention, 
neither  do  I  intend  to  do  so — but  I  cannot  suffer  a  subject, 
the  result  of  which  is  fraught  with  such  vast  importance 
to  pass  without  raising  my  voice  in  the  support   of  what  I 


Fragments  from  The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter.      331 

conceive  to  be  a  principle  that  lies  at  the  very  foundation  of 
all  Republicanism — Equal  Rights. — I  say  then,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, in  conclusion,  that  I  hope  this  whole  constitution  will 
be  conceived  in  in  the  spirt  of  liberty  and  ushered  into  exist- 
ence in  full  maturity,  with  every  feature  purely  Republican 
— let  there  be  no  amalgamation  with  monarchy,  aristocracy 
or  monopoly — but  let  it  breathe  equal  justice  to  all — let  us 
prove  to  the  world,  in  this  instrument,  that  the  liberality  with 
which  nature  has  showered  her  blessings  on  this  rich  and 
beautiful  country,  is  fully  equalled  by  the  noble  and  gener- 
ous spirit  of  her  sons — only  stamp  the  spirit  of  liberty  on 
every  feature  of  our  constitution — and  depend  upon  it,  this 
heart  of  America  and  garden  of  the  world  will  ever  prove 
as  productive  in  the  rich  fruits  of  liberty  as  in  the  fruits  of 
her  soil. 

— Iowa  Capital  Reporter.,  Vol,  V.,  No.  13. 


IV. 
PRESS  COMMENTS 


AND 


OTHER  MATERIALS 

RELATIVE     TO 

THE  CONSTITUTION  OF  1846. 


THE  WHIG  PRESS  AND  THE  CONSTITUTION. 

Aware  of  their  hopeless  minority  in  the  Territory,  and  of 
their  consequent  inabiHty  to  effect  any  political  object  by 
direct  efforts,  the  whig  press  are  endeavoring,  by  special 
appeals  to  the  people  against  an  adherence  to  principle,  to 
exert  a  controhng  influence,  in  imparting  to  the  new  consti- 
tution a  bias  in  accordance  with  their  own  principles,  and 
in  fashioning  it  after  the  whig  standard  *         *  * 

What  unmeaning,  empty  sounds  are  these  terms,  "  party 
constitution  "  and  "  «i>-party  constitution  " !       *  *  * 

— Reprinted  fro7n  The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter,  Vol.  V., 
No.  2,  February  i8,  1846. 


THE  CONVENTION. 

It  will  be  seen  by  reference  to  our  reports,  that  this  body 
has  set  about  the  discharge  of  its  important  functions  with 
a  degree  of  earnestness  and  dispatch,  perhaps  unprecedented 
in  the  history  of  deliberative  assemblies.  The  permanent 
organization  was  not  only  completed,  but  some  of  the  sub- 
jects for  the  future  deliberation  of  the  Convention  were 
definitely  brought  to  its  notice,  also,  on  the  first  day  of  the 
session.  The  Committee  on  Boundaries  and  Rights  having 
been  announced,  proceeded  immediately  to  the  discharge 
of  the  duties  allotted  to  it,  and  agreed  upon  a  report  upon 
the  Bill  of  Rights,  which  was  printed,  and  laid  before  the 
Convention  yesterday  morning. 

Being  in  somewhat  of  a  straight  for  room  this  week,  on 
account  of  our  congressional  and  foreign  news,  a  very  few 
words  must  suffice  to  express  our  views  upon  the  requisite 


33^  Constituiioti  of  184.6. 

features  of  the  forthcoming  Constitution.  Of  the  number 
of  Delegates  composing  the  Convention,  the  people  having 
elected  more  than  two-thirds  democrats,  and  having  at  the 
primary  assemblies  which  nominated  them,  clearly  and  un- 
equivocally declared  the  object  of  their  selection,  we  can- 
not deem  it  essential  that  much  should  be  said  under  this 
head.  We  cannot,  under  such  circumstances,  for  a  moment 
harbor  a  doubt  that  our  fundamental  law  will  be  framed  in 
accordance  with  the  most  comprehensive  principles  of 
democracy  and  with  the  progressive  spirit  of  the  age. 

While  bigoted,  hoary-headed  error  is  met  at  the  thresh- 
old, we  trust  that  no  assumed  penurious  and  illiberal  bias  in 
the  public  mind — an  assumption  as  unfounded  as  it  is  dis- 
honorable to  the  people — will  be  permitted  to  interfere 
with  providing  such  a  system  of  government,  in  each 
department,  as  is  demanded  by  the  want  of  a  new  and 
rapidly  populating  country,  for  the  full  development  of  its 
resources  and  the  promotion  of  the  general  welfare. 

We  can  but  briefly  allude  to  a  few  of  those  features  in 
which  the  rejected  constitution  was  defective  in  principle. 
In  the  first  place,  as  to  the  right  of  suffrage — let  us  inquire, 
with  all  due  respect  to  the  superior  judgment  of  the  Dele- 
gates, whether  the  time  has  not  arrived  when  this  right 
should  be  materially  extended — whether  wisdom  and  justice, 
sanctioned  by  an  enhghtened  public  opinion,  do  not  dictate 
that  the  shackles  which  have  been  provided  for  those  who 
flee  from  the  tyranny  of  their  native  land,  and  seek  the 
blessings  of  liberty  under  our  free  institutions,  should  be 
effectually  abolished. 

A  Convention  of  the  character  here  assembled,  needs  no 
suggestion  that  the  public  weal  demands  a  complete  bar- 
rier in  the  compact  about  to  be  entered  into,  against  that 
unjust,  unequal,  and  corrupting  system  of  legislation  for 
classes — the  creation  of  grades  and  privileged  orders  in 
society — which  has  marked   and  disgraced   most   of   our 


Press  Comments  Relative  to  the  Constitution.       337 

sister  states.  As  regards  banking  institutions — those  cun- 
ning devices  for  robbing  the  laboring  and  producing 
classes  of  the  honest  fruits  of  their  labor. — we  are  satisfied 
that  nothing  short  of  an  absolute  prohibition  will  meet  the 
hearty  approval  of  the  great  mass  of  the  people  of  Iowa. 

— Refrinted  from  The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter,  Vol.  V., 
No.  ij,  May  6,  18^6. 

THE  CONSTITUTION. 

The  Convention  assembled  to  frame  a  social  compact 
and  fundamental  law  for  the  government  of  the  future  State 
of  Iowa,  closed  its  labors  on  the  19th  inst.,  having  been  in 
session  only  fourteen  working  days.  This  is  but  a  trifle 
over  half  the  time  consumed  by  the  convention  which 
assembled  for  the  same  purpose  in  November,  1844.  That 
was  composed  of  seventy-two  Delegates — this  of  but  thirty- 
two — and  we  believe  few  candid  men  will  deny  that  the 
constitution  now  presented  is,  in  its  details,  as  well  as  in  its 
general  style  and  features,  much  superior  to  that  of  1844. 
The  auspices  under  which  it  is  ushered  into  existence,  being, 
also,  far  more  favorable,  we  predict  that  it  will  meet  with 
a  very  different  fate  from  that  of  its  ill  starred  predecessor. 

It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  the  dehberations  of  this 
body  were  characterized  in  a  high  degree  by  an  enlightened 
liberality,  in  keeping  with  the  spirit  of  the  age,  and  that 
they  were  conducted  with  that  wisdom  and  forecast  de- 
manded by  the  magnitude  of  the  interests  which  were 
involved. 

It  would  give  us  pleasure,  could  we  dwell  more  at  length 
upon  this  subject,  and  furnish  our  readers  with  an  outline 
of  the  characters  of  those  men  who  have  become  objects 
of  public  interest,  by  being  inseparably  identified  with  the 
early  history  of  a  great  and  prosperous  State.  Especially 
had  we  designed  a  more  particular  notice  of  those  Dele- 


338  Constitution  of  18^6. 

gates  whose  first  appearance  upon  the  stage  of  public  action 
was  in  that  capacity;  but  this  must  be  deferred  to  a  future 
number. 

The  object  of  this  article  is  a  brief  notice  of  the  articles 
of  compact  drafted  for  the  people  by  their  agents,  and  now 
presented  to  them  for  their  final  ratification  or  rejection. 
As  this  notice  must  necessarily  be  quite  brief  and  general, 
our  readers  are  referred  to  the  instrument  itself,  which  will 
be  found  upon  our  third  page,  where  we  intend  to  keep  it 
until  the  day  of  election,  so  that  "  he  who  runs  may  read^'' 
and  not  depend  upon  the  representations  of  designing  inter- 
meddlers  for  a  knowledge  of  its  provisions  and  character. 
Let  every  man  read  and  weigh  it  carefully,  and  judge  of 
its  merits  for  himself;  and  let  no  man  pronounce  a  verdict, 
favorable  or  unfavorable,  upon  it,  exxept  upon  the  full  and 
solemn  conviction  of  his  unbiased  judgment.  No  man  of  a 
liberal  mind  and  enlarged  views  will  form  a  conclusion  in 
any  other  manner,  or  blindly  follow  the  ipse  dixit  of  a 
party  leader  in  a  matter  of  such  weighty  import. 

In  regard  to  this  constitution  as  compared  with  the  re- 
jected one,  we  have  heard  but  one  opinion  expressed,  by  J 
persons  of  whatever  sect  or  party,  and  that  is,  that  as  a 
whole,  it  is  a  great  improvement  upon  the  latter.  Yet 
objections  will  be  raised  by  some  to  one  feature,  and  by 
some  to  another;  and  perhaps  no  one  provision  will  meet 
the  unqualified  approval  of  every  man  in  community.  It 
would  be  strange,  indeed,  if  a  constitution  could  be  so 
framed  as  not  to  encounter  these  conflicting  objections. 
While  we  do  not  pretend  to  say  that  it  is  perfect,  wholly 
void  of  defects,  we  do  say  that  it  is  such  an  instrument  as 
we  are  proud  in  sending  forth  to  the  world  as  the  chart  for 
the  government  of  our  future  State — as  the  soul  which  is 
to  animate  the  body  politic  composed  of  an  enlightened, 
high  minded  and  progressive  people,  who  are  fully  com- 
petent to  the  exercise,  and  duly  appreciate  the  invaluable 
prerogative  of  sovereignty. 


Press  Comments  Relative  to  the  Constitution.       339 

Most  ample  provision  is  made  for  educating  the  rising 
generation.  This  is  a  feature  which  cannot  be  too  highly 
prized. — It  speaks  volumes  for  the  character  of  our  popu- 
lation, and  argues  well  for  the  prosperity  of  the  people 
and  the  success  of  the  great  enterprise  in  which  they  are 
about  to  embark.  Let  the  moral  and  mental  culture  *  * 
*  *  ^  and  the  free  institutions  of  our  country  will  be  safe 
in  their  hands. 

The  article  upon  the  judiciary  is  a  compromise  with  ref- 
erence to  the  manner  of  selecting  the  judges.  We  would 
have  preferred  that  the  Supreme,  as  well  as  the  District 
judges,  should  have  been  made  elective  by  the  people;  but 
many  of  the  Delegates  who  were  in  favor  of  that  policy, 
believed  that  public  opinion  was  not  yet  fully  prepared  for 
it,  and  conceded  their  views  accordingly. 

Upon  other  subjects,  many  of  the  objections  urged 
against  the  old  constitution  are  obviated.  It  was  objected 
to  that  instrument,  particularly,  that  there  was  too  much 
legislation  in  its  provisions.  This  ground  of  objection  is  re- 
moved in  the  draft  now  presented. 

Upon  the  subject  of  corporate  privileges,  &c.,  the  consti- 
tution is  so  clear  and  explicit  as  to  leave  very  little  room  for 
construction  or  implication,  and  to  obviate  the  necessity  of 
"  legislative "  provisions  objected  to.  The  Legislature  is 
prohibited  from  granting  monopolies  or  special  privileges  of 
any  name  or  nature ;  while  it  may  enact  general  laws  under 
which  associations  may  incorporate  themselves,  the  benefit 
of  which  will  be  open  to  all  men  alike.  This  secures  all  the 
benefits  arising  from  the  association  of  capital  for  the  pur- 
pose of  internal  improvements  or  manufacturing,  without  its 
evils. 

The  old  draft  permitted  the  establishment  of  banks,  under 
certain    prescribed    restrictions  which  all    experience    has 

^Not  readable  in  the  original. 


340  Constitution  of  1846. 

shown  to  be  wholly  inadequate  to  secure  the  public  interest. 
In  the  present  compact  entered  into  by  the  Delegates  of 
the  people,  it  is  stipulated  that  no  such  institutions  shall  be 
established  in  the  State.  The  wisdom  of  this  provision  is 
very  conclusively  proved,  by  the  fact  that  its  absence  in  the 
constitutions  of  many  of  the  old  states  has  been  found  to  be 
a  grievous  defect,  from  which  the  public  interest  has  vitally 
suffered,  and  that  those  whose  constitutions  have  recently 
been  framed  have  seen  the  absolute  necessity  of  adopting 
it,  and  have  adopted  it  accordingly.  Though  it  has  met, 
and  probably  will  yet  meet,  with  some  opposition,  we  are 
satisfied  that  it  will  meet  the  hearty  approval  of  more  than 
three  fourths  of  the  people  of  Iowa. 

— jRej)rinted  from  The  loxva  Capital  Reporter,  Vol.  V., 
A^o.  14,  May  27,  1846. 

BANK   OR   NO  BANK! 

Will  the  Whig  part}' of  Iowa  meet  thisjssue  ?  *  * 
*  From  recent  indications,  viewed  in  connection  with 
their  past  course,  it  is  obvious  that  they  are  bound — even 
though  their  opposition  should  be,  as  in  the  present  instance 
it  clearl}^  is,  without  the  slightest  prospect  of  success — to 
oppose  the  adoption  of  any  constitution,  whatever  might  be 
its  character,  in  the  framing  of  which  they  have  not  exer- 
cised the  controlling  voice  ***** 

The  feature  towards  which  they  manifest  the  most  bitter 
hostility,  is  the  prohibitory  clause  against  the  banks.  The 
Delegates  of  the  people,  in  drafting  the  articles  of  their 
compact,  stipulated  that  the  government  should  not  create 
any  institution  with  banking  or  discounting  privileges. 
This  the  whig  Delegates,  numbering  less  than  one  third  of 
the  Convention,  strenuously  opposed;  but  their  leaders,  at 
the  same  time,  earnestly  protested  that  they  were  not  in 
favor  of  state  or  local  banks.     A  national  bank  seemed  to 


Press  Comments  Relative  to  the  Constitution.       341 

be  the   great  desideratum  with  them — their  ultimatum,  in 
fact — notwithstanding    that    the   "  God-like    Daniel "   long 
since  pronounced  such  an  institution  "  an  obsolete  idea.'''' 
***  *  *  **## 

— Refrinted  from  The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter,  Vol.  V., 
No.  14,  May  27,  1846. 

STATE  DEBTS. 

The  attention  of  our  readers  is  invited  to  the  very  judi- 
cious provision  engrafted  upon  our  Constitution,  under  the 
above  head.         ******** 

The  limitation  to,  and  checks  upon  the  debt  creating 
power  of  the  General  Assembly,  it  will  be  seen,  are  the 
same  as  those  contained  in  the  constitution  submitted  last 
year.  So  far  from  their  forming  a  new  feature,  similar 
provisions,  almost  in  the  precise  terms,  have  since  been 
engrafted  upon  the  revised  constitutions  of  N.  Jersey,  Mis- 
souri, Louisiana,  and  Texas.  ***** 

Though  it  is  a  provision  which  sufficiently  recommends 
itself,  yet,  strange  as  it  may  appear,  there  was  an  organized 
opposition  to  it  in  the  Convention.  *         *  *  * 

— Reprinted  from  The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter,  Vol.  V., 
No.  14,  May  27,  1846. 

RIGHT  OF  SUFFRAGE. 

The  friends  of  equal  rights  throughout  the  country  will 
rejoice  to  learn  of  the  progress  that  the  principle  of  uni- 
versal suffrage  has  made  in  Iowa.  A  portion  of  our  Dele- 
gates in  the  Convention  took  a  bold  stand  in  opposition  to 
the  proscription  of  foreigners  who  flee  from  the  oppression 
and  tyranny  under  which  they  have  been  born,  to  seek  an 
asylum  under  our  free  institutions. — Two  propositions  were 
submitted,  one  by  Mr.  Ross,  of  Jefferson,  and  the  other  by 


342  Constitution  of  184.6. 

Mr.  Tryon,  of  Linn  county,  as  amendments  to  the  article 
on  Suffrage  and  Citizenship,  with  a  view  to  the  enfranchise- 
ment of  foreigners,  upon  their  declaring  allegiance  to  the 
laws  of  our  country.  The  amendment  offered  by  Mr.  Ross 
was  in  the  following  words : 

"  All  white  foreigners  who  have  resided  in  the  state 
twelve  months,  and  who  have  declared  their  intentions  to 
become  citizens  of  the  United  States,  shall  be  entitled  to 
the  right  of  suffrage." 

For  which  Mr.  Tryon  offered  the  following  substitute: 

"  Every  white  male  foreigner  who  has  resided  in  any 
county  or  district  the  time  required  by  section  first,  and 
shall  have  taken  an  oath  of  allegiance,  shall  be  entitled  to 
the  right  of  suffrage." 

The  vote  upon  this  substitute  stood  14  to  14,  and  it  was 
consequently  rejected — Mr.  Ross,  and  one  or  two  others 
friendly  to  his  proposition,  voting  against  it. 

Upon  the  amendment  of  Mr.  Ross,  the  vote  stood  10 
yeas  and  18  nays — five  members  voting  against  it  who 
voted  for  Mr.  Tryon's  substitute.  Had  these  been  given 
in  favor  of  the  amendment,  it  would  have  been  adopted  by 
a  majority  of  two.  It  will  be  seen,  therefore,  that  either  of 
the  propositions  would  have  succeeded,  had  the  friends  of 
the  two  been  able  to  agree  upon  the  terms.  That  they 
could  not,  is  much  to  be  regretted;  for  we  believe  that  the 
time  has  arrived  when  foreigners  who  adopt  this  country 
as  their  home  on  account  of  their  love  of  liberty  and  attach- 
ment to  our  institutions,  should  no  longer  be  manacled  and 
held  as  politically  dead  for  the  period  of  five  years.  We 
have  always  thought  the  term  of  probation  was  unreason- 
ably long;  and  we  believe  that  public  opinion  throughout 
the  United  States,  if  fairly  tested,  would  be  in  favor  of 
shortening  it  at  least  one  half. 

It  may  be  objected,  that  this  amendment,  had  it  prevailed, 
would  conflict  with  the  federal  constitution;  but  this  is  a 


Press  Comments  Relative  to  the  Constitution.       343 

mistake.  Congress  possesses  the  power  of  enacting  uniform 
naturalization  laws,  and  of  prescribing  the  process  by  which 
foreigners  shall  become  citizens  of  the  United  States;  but 
it  has  no  power  to  prescribe  the  terms  upon  which  a  new 
state  shall  admit  them  to  the  rights  of  citizenship  within  the 
same.  Neither  do  we  believe  that  congress  would  be 
guided  by  such  a  prescriptive  spirit  as  to  refuse  us  admis- 
sion into  the  Union,  because  of  such  a  truly  democratic 
clause  in  our  Constitution. 

— Reprinted  from  The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter,  Vol.  V., 
No.  14.,  May  27,  184.6. 

WHIG  SOPHISTRY. 

In  opposing  the  bank  clause,  some  of  the  whig  members 
of  the  Convention  repudiated  their  old  and  favorite  bank 
doctrine,  which  is  still  advocated  by  their  party  in  the 
States;  but  maintained  that  a  total  inhibition  of  banks  in 
the  fundamental  law  was  an  infringement  of  the  people's 

The  whig  Delegates,  in  arguing  this  question,  put  the 
cart  before  the  horse.  They  lost  sight  altogether  of  the 
substance  of  constitutional  liberty,  and  held  up  its  ghostly 
shadow  as  a  kind  of  scarecrow.      *  *  *         * 

— Reprinted  from  The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter,  Vol.  V., 
No.  iSifunej,  1846. 

WE  "CONSIDER  THE  SOURCE,"  &c. 

It  matters  little  to  us  what  opinion  the  editor  of  the 
Miners'  Express  may  entertain  of  the  character  of  our 
reasoning,  or  whether  he  considers  our  style  "  animated  or 
rampant.'"  *  *  *  Nor  would  it  be  in  character 
that  we  should  stoop  to  repel  his  base  imputation  concern- 


344  Constitution  of  1846. 

ing  a  "  southern  coalition.''''  Our  friends  of  the  North  know 
full  well  that  we  have,  in  all  things,  faithfully  represented 
their  true  interests.  *****  * 

— Reprinted  from  The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter,    Vol.    V., 
No.  is,funej,  184.6. 


JACKSON   COUNTY. 

The  Democracy  of  this  county  met  in  mass  Convention 
on  the  2ist  of  April  to  perfect  their  organization  for  the 
ensuing  year.  ******* 

The  following  are  among  the  resolutions  adopted.    *     * 

Resolved,  That  we  are  opposed  to  the  division  of  the 
Territory  at  the  42  1-2°  of  north  latitude,  but  we  will  be 
satisfied  with  43^°,  or  with  the  Convention  boundaries,  or 
the  Congressional  Boundaries. 

— Reprinted  from  The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter,  Vol.  V., 
No.  15,  f  line  J,  1846. 

SOMETHING  INCOMPREHENSIBLE. 

The  Bloomington  Herald  of  last  week,  contains  an  edi- 
torial article  in  relation  to  the  constitution  for  the  State  of 
Iowa,  formed  by  the  late  convention,  that  is  really  a  curious 
production.     *     *     *     We  give  a  few  specimens. 

No.  1. — "  It  is  strictly  a  party  constitution,  full  of  ultraism 
and  illiberality — such  an  one  as  in  our  opinion  is  despotic 
in  theory,  and  equally  so  in  practice."  *  *  * 

No.  2. — "  The  locofocos,  while  possessing  love  for  the 
people,  have  bound  them  hand  and  foot."     *  *  * 

No.  3. — "  The  constitution  prohibits  the  incorporation  of 
all  private  corporations."  ***** 

No.  4. — "  Companies  will  not  organize  and  expend  money 
in  carrying  out  a  project,  unless  they  can  have  some  assur- 


Press  Comments  Relative  to  the  Constitution.       345 

ance  that   others  will  not   be  permitted  to  interfere  with 
them  in  such  a  way  as  to  render  their  exertions  fruitless." 

— Re^ri^ited  from  The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter,  Vol.,  V., 
^o.  15,  June  J,  1846. 

THE  BANK  CI.AUSE. 

No  feature  of  the  Constitution  has  been  more  emphatic- 
ally demanded  by  the  public  voice,  than  this.  The  mem- 
bers of  the  Convention  were  doubly  instructed  to  provide 
this  prohibitory  clause  against  banks — first,  by  the  rejection 
of  the  instrument  which  did  not  prohibit  them — and  sec- 
ondly, by  the  most  unequivocal  expressions  of  the  people 
at  their  primarj-  assemblies  and  through  the  ballot  box. 

Every  democratic  convention  for  the  nomination  of  Del- 
egates, adopted  resolutions  for  their  instruction,  denounc- 
ing banks  as  intolerable  nuisances,  and  the  greatest  of  public 
evils;  and  by  most  of  them  it  was  distinctly  declared  that 
they  ought  to  be  prohibited.  Among  the  conventions  that 
were  held  in  the  territory,  we  have  yet  to  learn  of  the  first 
one,  whig  or  democratic,  which  has  openly  declared  in 
favor  of  banks.  If  there  has  been  such  expression,  from 
any  quarter,  it  has  escaped  our  notice     *         *         *         * 

If  there  is  even  a  respectable  minority  of  the  people  who 
are  really  desirous  that  banks  should  be  established,  they 
are  extremely  backward  in  making  their  wishes  known. 

— Reprinted  from  The  Iowa  Capital  Reporter,  Vol.  V., 
No.  /J",  June  j,  1846. 

MR.  DODGE'S  SPEECH. 

We  have  read  the  remarks  of  Gen.  Dodge  in  the  House 
of  Representatives,  June  8th,  on  the  Bill  to  define  the 
boundaries  of  the  State  of  Ipwa,  and  to  repeal  so  much  of 


34^  Constitution  of  184.6. 

the  act  of  the  3d  of  March  1845,  as  relates  to  the  bound- 
aries of  Iowa,  from  which  we  make  the  following  extract: 

"  The  Desmoines  is  now  navigable  for  a  considerable 
portion  of  the  year,  and  is  susceptible,  with  the  greatest 
facility  and  slightest  expenditure,  of  being  made  so  for 
many  hundred  miles  at  all  seasons  of  the  year,  when  not 
obstructed  by  ice. — The  country  through  which  it  runs  is 
one  of  unsurpassed  fertility,  and  is  now  being  densely  in- 
habited. From  the  central  position  of  this  river,  and  its 
other  advantages,  there  are  a  very  large  portion  of  the 
people  of  Iowa  who  believe,  and  desire,  their  ultimate  skat 
OF  GOVERNMENT  should  be  Upon  it.'*'* 

In  this  speech  of  General  Dodge,  he  is  advocating  the 
boundaries  established  in  the  Constitution  now  pending  for 
ratification  or  rejection — that  is,  the  parallel  of  latitude  43° 
30'  on  the  North,  and  the  Missouri  river  on  the  West. 
These  boundaries.  North  and  West,  have  been  defined  by 
Congress,  and  the  good  people  have  now  nothing  more  to 
do  than  to  ratify  the  Constitution,  and  instruct  the  Legisla- 
ture to  remove  the  Seat  of  Governmentyrc/w  lozva  City  to 
the  Desmoines  river,  agreeably  to  the  suggestions  of  Gen. 
Dodge. 

But  seriously,  we  imagine  that  the  citizens  residing  in 
that  portion  of  the  Territory  which  is  watered  by  the  Iowa 
and  Cedar  rivers,  will  not  thank  their  Delegate  for  wander- 
ing from  the  path  of  legitimate  discussion,  to  indicate  a  re- 
location of  the  Seat  of  Government.  When  Iowa  shall 
become  a  State,  and  her  whole  territory  pretty  well  settled, 
it  will  be  time  enough  to  talk  about  this  matter.  The  first 
Convention,  with  great  unanimity,  located  the  seat  of  gov- 
ernment in  this  city  for  twenty  years;  and  the  last  one 
declared  it  should  be  the  capital  until  removed  by  law. 
And  here  it  should  remain  for  at  least  a  quarter  of  a  cen- 
tury. Some  eighty  thousand  dollars  have  been  expended 
on  the  State  House,  and  we  presume  the  people  will  not, 


The  Address  of  Wm.  Penn  Clark.  347 

to  gratify  the  wishes  of  a  few  land  and  town-lot  speculators, 
or  the  whims  of  a  few  sticklers  for  locating  the  capital 
in  the  geographical  center,  be  disposed  to  tax  themselves 
some  hundred  thousand  dollars  to  erect  another,  upon  the 
banks  of  the  great  Desmoines,  *'  now  navigable  for  a  con- 
siderable portion  of  the  year." 

— Reprinted  from  The  Iowa  Standard,  New  Series,  Vol. 
/.,  No.  5,  July  15 ,  184.6. 


TO  THE  ELECTORS  OF  MUSCATINE,  JOHNSON 
AND  IOWA  COUNTIES: 

Fellow  Citizens: — 

By  the  action  of  my  political  friends,  I  have  been  placed 
before  you  as  a  candidate  at  the  ensuing  election,  for  a  seat 
in  the  Council.  The  position  which  I  now  occupy  before 
the  public,  was  not  sought  for  by  myself,  and  were  I  to 
consult  my  feelings  alone,  I  should  not  now  appear  before 
you  as  a  candidate.  But,  holding  to  the  principle  that  indi- 
vidual convenience  should  give  way  to  the  demands  which 
the  community  has  upon  every  citizen,  I  have  determined 
to  abide  by  the  decision  of  my  friends,  and  stand  a  poll,  re- 
gardless of  sacrifices  to  myself.  And  having  thus  committed 
myself  into  the  hands  of  my  friends,  I  feel  a  desire,  com- 
mon to  every  man  who  is  a  candidate — a  desire  to  be  suc- 
cessful in  the  contest,  and  be  elected  to  the  station  for 
which  I  am  a  candidate.  It  was  the  expectation  of  my  po- 
litical friends,  at  the  time  of  my  nomination,  as  I  have  rea- 
son to  believe,  that  I  would  meet  the  people  during  the  can- 
vass, and  address  them  on  the  various  important  questions 
to  be  decided  through  the  ballot  box  at  the  approaching 
election — questions  deeply  to  affect  either  for  weal  or  woe, 
the  interests  and  future  prosperity  of  the  whole  people  of 


348  Constitution  of  184.6. 

Iowa.  Such  was,  and  still  is  my  desire,  and  were  the 
opportunity  presented  me,  to  do  so.  I  should  gladly  embrace 
it;  for  I  hold  it  to  be  the  duty  of  every  citizen,  who  aspires 
to  the  public  service,  freely  and  fully  to  communicate  his 
views  and  opinions  on  all  matters  pertaining  to  the  public 
weal.  But  the  intense  heat  of  the  weather,  so  far  during 
the  campaign,  and  the  busy  season  of  the  year,  now  at  hand, 
calling  the  people  to  their  fields,  and  requiring  their  whole 
time  and  attention  in  securing  their  crops,  admonishes  me 
that  an  effort  to  call  them  together  for  the  purpose  of  pub- 
lic discussion,  would  neither  be  successful  or  politic.  The 
only  medium,  then,  my  fellow  citizens,  through  which  I  can 
make  known  my  views  on  the  great  question,  to  which  I 
have  alluded,  is  the  Press;  and  I  cheerfully  resort  to  that, 
satisfied  that  by  this  mode,  I  can  more  clearly  and  delib- 
erately utter  my  sentiments,  than  in  the  heat  and  excite- 
ment of  an  oral  discussion;  and  that  you  can  peruse  and 
reflect  upon  them  at  your  leisure.  This  mode  saves  me 
from  the  danger  of  being  misapprehended  or  misrepre- 
sented, and  will  enable  you  to  hold  me  to  a  strict  responsi- 
bility, should  I  be  so  fortunate  as  to  be  elected,  and  fail  to 
discharge,  with  fidelity,  the  trust  committed  to  my  keeping. 
It  is  a  mode  of  communication,  then,  alike  safe  to  the  can- 
didate for  public  suffrages,  and  those  who  have  the 
bestowal  of  them. 

With  these  prefatory  remarks,  I  proceed  to  notice  briefly, 
the  great  issues  to  be  decided  by  the  sovereign  will,  on 
the  first  Monday  of  August  next.  These  issues  are  in- 
volved in  the  adoption  or  rejection  of  the  proposed  Con- 
stitution for  the  future  State  of  Iowa.  It  is  a  matter  of 
very  little  consequence,  except  so  far  as  we  represent  op- 
posing principles,  whether  my  worthy  opponent,  ( a  gentle- 
man whom  I  am  pleased  to  regard  as  a  personal  friend )  or 
my  humble  self  is  elected  to  the  Council;  but  it  is  highly, 
vitally  important  that  in  the  adoption  of  a  fundamental  law, 


The  Address  of  Wm.  Penn  Clark.  349 

every  citizen  should  fully  understand  its  principles,  and 
calmly  form  his  judgment  as  to  the  probable  effect  of  the 
measure  upon  the  body  politic.  If  it  is  his  deliberate  opinion 
that  the  Constitution  which  has  been  framed  by  the  people's 
Representatives,  will  advance  the  great  ends  of  self-govern- 
ment, render  the  people  happy  and  prosperous,  and  con- 
tribute towards  making  Iowa  a  flourishing  and  populous 
State,  then  should  he  vote  for  its  adoption,  regardless  of 
party  influences  or  political  chicanery.  On  the  other  hand, 
if  he  arrives  at  the  conviction  that  the  Constitution  will 
thwart  the  purposes  and  design  of  republicanism,  or  stand  in 
the  way  of  the  moral,  political,  or  physical  advancement  of 
the  people  or  government,  then  is  he  equally  bound  to  act 
with  the  same  independence,  and  vote  in  favor  of  its  rejec- 
tion. In  common  with  my  fellow  citizens,  I  have  devoted 
some  time  to  an  examination  of  the  proposed  Constitution, 
and  the  conclusion  at  which  my  mind  has  arrived,  guided 
by  an  eye  single  to  the  common  welfare,  is,  that  the  adop- 
tion of  that  instrument,  will  prove  greatly  detrimental,  if 
not  entirely  ruinous  to  the  nearest  and  dearest  interests  of 
the  people,  by  retarding  the  growth  of  the  proposed  State, 
in  population,  commerce,  wealth  and  prosperity.  Without 
expecting  to  change  the  views  of  those  whose  minds  are 
formed  on  this  subject,  and  hoping  only  to  assist  others  in 
coming  to  some  rational  conclusion,  I  shall  state  as 
succinctly  as  possible,  the  train  of  reasoning  which  has 
produced  the  conviction  I  have  expressed. 

BANKS   AND   CURRENCY. 

I  am  opposed  to  the  adoption  of  the  proposed  Constitu- 
tion, in  the  first  place,  because  it  entirely  prohibits  the 
estabhshing  of  banking  incorporations, — institutions  which 
are  the  inventions  of  trade,  and  which  exist,  not  only  in  all 
the  States  of  this  Union,  but  in  every  civilized  nation  of  any 
commercial  or    political    importance.      The    inhibition    of 


3 so  Constitution  of  184.6. 

Banks  is  not  an  inhibition  of  bank  paper,  as  a  circulating 
medium.  The  abstract  question,  whether  we  will  prefer 
gold  and  silver  exclusively,  rather  than  a  mixed  currency,  is 
not  presented  for  our  own  decision.  The  question  is  nar- 
rowed down  to  the  single  point,  whether  we  will  have  hanks 
of  our  ozvn,  and  a  currency  of  our  own  creation,  and  under 
our  own  control,  or  whether  we  will  become  dependent  on 
other  States  for  such  a  circulating  medium;  trusting  to  the 
solvency  and  good  faith  of  their  institutions,  and  affording 
them  a  market  for  their  issues,  without  receiving  any  of  the 
profits  of  the  business.  Who  can  hesitate  about  deciding 
this  question  ?  If  bank  paper  must,  and  will  enter  into  and 
become  a  part  of  the  currency  of  the  State,  ( and  no  one 
can  deny  but  such  will  be  the  case  so  long  as  the  other 
States  have  banks  and  bank  paper,)  common  sense  at  once 
dictates  that  those  issues  should  be  subject  to  the  control  of 
our  government,  and  emanate,  from  institutions  conducted 
by  our  own  citizens,  of  whose  character  and  solvency  we 
can  know  something.  It  becomes  a  principle  of  protection, 
then,  and  self-preservation  unites  with  self-interest  in 
demanding  that  we  provide  a  local  currency  of  our  ow^n. 
Each  State  acts  for  itself  in  this  particular,  and  as  we  can- 
not control  or  forbid  the  action  of  our  sisters,  policy  and 
duty  dictate  that  we  protect  ourselves  from  the  effects  of 
their  Legislation.  We  can  only  do  this  by  placing  our- 
selves upon  an  equality  wdth  them.  If  we  provide  a  safe 
and  sound  State  currency,  as  they  have  done,  our  capital 
can  be  employed  as  advantageously  as  theirs,  and  our  in- 
stitutions will  act,  not  only  as  a  check  upon  their  banks, 
but  drive  beyond  our  limits,  the  notes  of  foreign  institutions. 
Banks  will  draw  capital  to  them,  and  no  country  needs  the 
rhino  more  than  this. — The  capital  will  come  from  the  old 
States,  where  it  is  abundant,  locate  itself  here,  pay  its  pro- 
portion of  the  public  burdens,  and  become  an  active  instru- 
ment in  breaking  up   our  prairies.     Treading  fast  in  the 


The  Address  of  Wm.  Penn  Clark.  351 

footsteps  of  capital,  comes  population. — The  industrious 
mechanic,  the  enterprising  manufacturer,  the  hardy  laborer, 
all  follow  capital.  Where  money  is  plenty,  there  labor  is 
amply  rewarded,  and  all  classes  of  society  flourish. 

On  the  other  hand,  by  prohibiting  the  creation  of  banks, 
we  but  disable  ourselves,  and  substitute  a  foreign  currency 
for  a  home  currency.  The  effect  of  the  article  on  Incor- 
porations, will  be  to  make  Iowa  the  plunder  ground  of  all 
the  Banks  in  the  Union.  Instead  of  the  hard  money 
promised  the  people,  we  shall  have  not  only  a  hard  cur- 
rency, but  one  well  mixed^  for  it  will  consist  of  the  issues  of 
those  institutions  which  have  no  credit  at  home,  and  whose 
paper  is  thus  driven  abroad  for  circulation.  Instead  of  a 
currency  free  from  expansion  or  contraction,  as  hard  money 
is  alleged  to  be,  we  shall  have  a  circulation  constantly 
liable  to  explosion,  and  irredeemable  in  its  character.  For 
this  reason  alone,  could  no  others  be  urged,  I  deem  it  highly 
impolitic  to  incorporate  into  our  fundamental  law,  such  a 
provision  as  that  upon  which  I  have  been  commenting. 
But  many  other  equally  forcible  arguments  might  be  ad- 
vanced, to  establish  the  impolicy  of  the  proposition.  To 
give  them  at  length,  and  show  the  beneficial  effects  of  a 
properly  regulated  credit  system  upon  the  character  and 
business  of  a  people,  would  require  more  space  than  I  have 
at  my  command.  Having  thus  presented  the  question  in 
its  true  light,  I  leave  it  to  the  decision  of  my  fellow  citizens. 

INTERNAL   IMPROVEMENT. 

Next  in  importance,  is  the  subject  of  Internal  Improve- 
ments. I  am  opposed  to  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution, 
secondly,  because,  in  fact,  it  prohibits  the  construction  of 
such  works.  I  need  not,  at  this  day,  make  an  argument  in 
behalf  of  these  great  enterprises.  The  inventive  spirit  of 
the  age,  is  at  work  to  annihilate  time  and  space,  and  bring 
the  markets  of  the  East  and  the  South  to  the  doors  of  the 


352  Constitution  of  1846. 

Western  Agriculturist.  If  we  would  maintain  our  proper 
position  in  the  Union,  we  must  march  in  the  footsteps  of 
our  Western  sisters,  and  engage  in  these  undertakings. — 
To  refuse,  is  to  exclude  our  products  from  the  great 
markets  of  the  world.  The  8th  article  of  the  proposed 
Constitution,  headed  "  State  debts,"  and  the  second  section 
of  the  article  on  Incorporations,  relate  to  this  subject.  The 
article  on  State  Debts  is  tantamount  to  an  inhibition  of  the 
construction  of  such  works  by  the  State  government.  It 
is  such,  because  it  restrains  the  government  from  antici- 
pating the  revenue  of  the  work,  and  borrowing  money,  as 
is  usual  all  the  world  over,  for  its  creation.  It  requires, 
then,  that  such  improvements  shall  be  made  by  direct  tax- 
ation, and  that  taxation  is  to  commence,  and  continue  with 
the  progress  of  the  work.  This  is  impolitic,  for  the  reason 
that  it  is  using  capital  which  might  be  employed  to  greater 
immediate  advantage  in  other  ways.  It  not  only  deprives  us 
of  the  use  of  foreign  capital,  which  might  easily  be  obtained 
at  a  reasonable  interest,  but  it  throws  the  whole  burden  of 
the  construction  of  such  works  upon  the  citizens  of  the 
State.  It  deprives  the  people  collectively  of  a  right  they 
possess  individually— the  right  to  throw  their  credit  and 
character  into  market,  and  make  them  serve  the  purposes 
of  capital.  The  State  government  is  but  an  aggregate 
individual,  is  subject  to  the  same  laws  of  finance,  which 
govern  single  persons,  and  should  possess  the  same  liberty 
to  make  contracts  that  individual  citizens  enjoy.  But  could 
this  obstacle  be  removed,  the  subsequent  provisions  of  the 
same  article,  would  defeat  the  construction  of  works  of 
Internal  Improvement.  The  work  of  Legislation  is  taken 
out  of  the  hands  of  the  law-making  department,  and  refer- 
red to  the  great  mass  of  the  people.  The  question  of  sec- 
tional interests,  is  now  transferred  from  the  few  to  the 
many,  and  it  now  becomes,  7iot  a  question  of  State  Policy, 
designed  to  benefit  the  whole  commanity,  but  is  narrowed 


The  Address  of  Wm.  Penn  Clark.  353 

down  to  a  simple  question  of  individual  interest.  Every 
voter  will  examine  whether  the  proposed  work  will  enhance 
the  value  of  his  location,  directly  leaving  out  of  view,  great 
and  fundamental  principles  and  their  results,  direct  and 
remote;  and  if  he  is  Satisfied  that  it  will  put  money  into  his 
pocket,  and  take  but  little  out,  he  will  vote  for  the  measure, 
and  vice  versa.  Thus,  that  sectional  interest,  which  com- 
mands the  bulk  of  population,  will  get  the  desired  improve- 
ments, whilst  the  minority  will  be  burdened  with  taxation, 
and  receive  no  benefit.  This  measure  cannot  fail  to  de- 
stroy every  thing  like  a  uniform  and  permanent  system  of 
Internal  Improvements,  and  involve  the  people  in  questions 
of  finance,  which  they  have  neither  the  time  or  inclination 
to  investigate.  This  provision,  while  it  will  secure  but  a 
doubtful  good,  will  certainly  be  productive  of  a  great  deal 
of  evil. 

If,  then,  works  of  Internal  Improvement  are  to  be  con- 
structed, they  must  be  made  under  the  second  section  of 
the  article  on  Incorporations.  That  section  provides  that 
"  the  General  Assembly  shall  provide,  by  general  laws,  for 
the  organization  of  all  other  corporations,  except  corpora- 
tions with  banking  privileges,  the  creation  of  which,  is 
prohibited,"  and  that  "  the  State  shall  not,  directly  or  indi- 
rectly, become  a  stock-holder  in  any  corporation."  If  the 
framers  of  the  Constitution  had  been  honest  men,  and 
boldly  avowed  their  intentions,  they  would  have  said  in 
plain  terms,  that  the  people  shall  never  be  allowed  to  make 
such  improvements.  Such,  unquestionably,  was  their 
design.  The  idea  of  making  a  railroad  or  canal,  under  a 
general  law,  repealable  at  the  will  of  the  law-making 
power,  is  perfectly  absurd.  Such  a  thing  never  has  been 
done,  and  never  will  be  done.  Capital  is  always  jealous  of 
power,  and  looks  well  to  the  dangers  which  threaten  its 
profits.  It  can  not  be  induced  to  enter  into  enterprises 
which  may  be  crushed  by  an  arbitrary  exercise  of  power, 
23 


354  Constitution  of  i8/f.6. 

and  leave  it  remediless.  Such  would  be  its  situation,  under 
this  provision.  A  railroad  or  canal  is  designed  to  benefit 
both  the  public  at  large,  and  those  who  invest  money  in  its 
construction;  it  enhances  the  value  of  real  estate,  brings  the 
market  to  the  door  of  the  farmer,  and  becomes  a  public 
convenience.  The  company  who  undertake  to  build  such 
a  work,  must  be  allowed  not  only  a  definite  corporate  exis- 
tence, but  certain  privileges  as  to  the  right  of  way,  which 
are  essential  to  the  existence  of  the  road.  These  cannot 
be  conferred  under  a  general  law,  for  the  very  framers  of 
the  Constitution  hold  to  the  doctrine  that  one  legislature  can- 
not bind  or  restrain  the  action  of  a  subsequent  one.  Special 
acts  of  Incorporation  are  contracts  between  the  government 
and  the  company,  irrepealable  until  the  charter  expires,  and 
forfeited  only  by  misuser  or  nonuser.  But  under  general 
laws,  all  the  power  is  in  the  hands  of  the  government, 
which  may,  or  ma}'^  not  look  with  favor  on  the  contem- 
plated work,  and  men  acting  under  such  laws,  have  no 
vested  rights,  or  security  that  they  will  be  protected  in  their 
undertaking.  The  idea  of  making  such  improvements 
under  general  laws,  is  an  abstraction  that  can  never  be  of 
practical  utility.  In  addition  to  this,  and  as  if  to  make  the 
work  of  prevention  doubly  sure,  the  State  is  prohibited 
from  having  any  interest  in  such  companies,  or  rendering 
them  any  assistance.  This  is  all  wrong.  If  the  State  will 
not  itself  make  such  improvements  as  the  public  interests 
require,  in  order  to  enable  its  citizens  to  compete  with  the 
members  of  other  communities,  but  prefers  to  delegate  the 
power  to  associations  of  men,  it  should  at  least  show  its 
good  will  to  the  object  in  view,  by  taking  a  portion  of  the 
stock  of  the  company,  or  loaning  to  it  a  portion  of  its  credit. 
This  step  imparts  confidence  in  the  enterprise,  to  individual 
capitalists,  and  at  the  same  time  affords  the  assurance  to 
the  people,  that  the  work,  when  completed,  will  be  con- 
ducted advantageously  alike  to  the  company  and  the  great 


The  Address  of  Wm.  Penn  Clark.  355 

mass  of  the  citizens.  But  I  have  not  now  time  to  pursue 
the  subject  farther,  full  as  it  is  of  interest,  or  show  how 
such  improvements  advance  the  common  prosperity  of  the 
whole  community,  or  expose  the  fallacy  of  the  positions 
assumed  by  those  who  make  war  upon  such  works.  I 
trust,  however,  that  enough  has  been  said  to  satisfy  my 
fellow  citizens  of  the  utter  inexpediency  of  the  articles  on 
State  Debts  and  Incorporations,  and  to  convince  them  that 
by  voting  for  the  Constitution,  they,  in  fact,  vote  for  the 
prohibition  of  works  of  Internal  Improvement  in  the  future 
State. 

AN  ELECTIVE  JUDICIARY. 

I  am  opposed  to  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution,  thirdly, 
because  it  proposes  an  experiment  with  our  judiciary  sys- 
tem.— An  elective  judiciary  is  one  of  the  vagaries  which  has 
grown  up  out  of  the  party  strife  of  the  country,  and  is  cal- 
culated to  disrobe  our  Courts  of  Justice  of  their  sacred  char- 
acter and  impair  the  confidence  the  people  ought  to,  and  do 
entertain  in  the  integrity  of  our  judges.  It  is  an  experi- 
ment which  has  been  tried  in  but  a  single  State  of  this 
Union,  Mississippi;  and  it  is  a  singular  fact,  as  undeniable 
as  it  is  singular,  that  in  this  State,  Hfe  and  property  are  less 
secure  than  in  any  other,  and  its  public  credit  is  lost  beyond 
redemption.  There  repudiation  is  openly  avowed,  and  crime 
and  murder  stalk  about  in  open  day.  And  so  far  as  we  can 
gather  from  the  public  press,  there  the  system  has  not 
worked  well.  Shall  we  then  discard  the  example  and  expe- 
rience of  all  the  other  States,  and  follow  the  isolated  course 
of  Mississippi  alone?  The  question  presented  to  the  peo- 
ple is  one  of  expediency  solely,  for  those  who  oppose  an 
elective  judiciary,  neither  deny  the  right  or  the  competency 
of  the  people  to  elect  their  judicial  officers.  They  oppose 
the  measure,  because  of  the  effects  it  will  be  likely  to  pro- 
duce here,  judging  from  what  it  has  done  elsewhere. 
What  are  the  effects  anticipated?     The  first  effect  of  this 


356  Constitution  of  1846. 

provision  will  be  to  place  upon  the  bench  political  fartizans. 
In  a  whig  district  we  shall  have  a  -whig  judge;  in  a  demo- 
cratic district,  a  democratic  judge.  If  the  position  is  correct 
when  applied  to  the  judge  of  the  law^  it  is  equally  applicable 
to  judges  of  ^}ci^fact;  yet  were  the  Constitution  to  provide 
that  in  democratic  counties,  there  should  be  none  other  than 
democratic  jurors,  and  in  whig  counties,  none  but  whig 
jurors,  the  proposition  would  be  greeted  with  an  universal 
burst  of  indignation.  The  second  effect  will  be,  to  elevate 
to  the  judiciary  second  or  third  rate  men  in  point  of  talents 
and  legal  acquirements.  Partizan  Conventions  will  be  fol- 
lowed round  by  men  of  this  class — most  of  them^arr/fy  hacks 
— claiming  a  nomination  to  the  judgeship,  as  the  reward  of 
political  services.  Lawyers  of  talents  and  character,  whose 
conduct  and  integrity  secure  them  an  ample  practice,  will 
not  degrade  themselves  by  coming  into  competition  with 
such  men.  Thus  it  is  reduced  to  probability  that  our  courts 
will  be  filled  by  judges,  whom,  as  lawyers^  the  people  would 
hardly  trust  with  a  three-shilling  case.  Are  the  people  pre- 
pared to  confide  the  judiciary — that  department  of  the  gov- 
ernment which  is  to  decide  upon  their  dearest  rights — to 
such  hands?  To  show  that  these  will  be  the  inevitable  re- 
sults of  the  proposed  experiment,  I  need  only  delineate  the 
manner  in  which  party  nominations  are  made — the  maneu- 
vering of  aspirants  to  pass  the  ordeal  of  a  party  convention, 
and  the  character  of  the  class  of  men  which  constitutes 
these  self-created  assemblages.  Still  another  effect  follows, 
equally  detrimental  to  the  public  interest.  Political  judges 
never  can  command  the  entire  confidence  of  the  great  mass 
of  the  community.  Those  who  have  been  arrayed  against 
them  in  the  canvass — with  whom  they  have  been  engaged 
in  party  conflict — will  watch  their  conduct  with  the  strictest 
vigilance,  ready  to  denounce  on  the  slightest  suspicion  of 
partiahty  to  a  political  favorite,  and  liable  to  misrepresent 
their  decisions  to  the  public;  whilst  the  judges  themselves, 


The  Address  of  Wm.  Penn  Clark.  357 

just  out  of  the  excitement  of  a  violent  contest,  with  the 
worst  passions  of  their  nature  aroused,  will  be  incapable  of 
deciding  causes  in  which  their  opponents  may  be  parties 
or  engaged,  free  from  those  prejudices,  and  with  that  calm 
deliberation,  which  should  mark  judicial  decisions.  So  long 
as  human  nature  is  what  it  is,  this  effect  will  be  produced, 
and  the  lightest  suspicions  of  wrong,  will  be  "  confirmation 
strong  as  holy  writ." 

The  natural  result  of  this  state  of  things  must  be,  to  drag 
the  decisions  of  the  judges  from  the  sacred  temples  of  Jus- 
tice, into  the  political  arena,  there  to  become  themes  for 
popular  discussion,  and  newspaper  animadversion.  Here^ 
again,  will  partizan  strife  be  renewed.  The  minority  will 
labor  to  make  capital  against  the  judge,  in  view  of  the  next 
election,  whilst  his  political  friends  will  be  equally  zealous 
in  sustaining  his  conduct.  The  judge  himself,  it  may  be, 
will  descend  from  his  tribunal,  throw  aside  his  robe  of  office, 
and  enter  the  ring,  desirous  of  breaking  a  lance  in  his  own 
defense.  But  the  numbers  which  made  the  judge  possess 
the  numerical  strength  to  sustain  him,  and  however  wrong 
may  have  been  his  conduct,  or  illegal  his  decisions,  an  ex- 
cited party  will  be  loath  to  condemn  their  representative, 
and  put  another  in  his  place.  Thus  the  laws  may  be  disre- 
garded— injustice  perpetrated  by  those  whose  duty  it  is 
made  to  prevent  it — individual  rights  impaired — and  the 
nearest  interests  of  the  citizen  blasted — and  all  without  a 
remedy!  Is  not  this  a  beautiful  system  ?  Yet  such,  I 
entertain  no  doubt,  will  be  its  natural  and  inevitable  results. 
Those,  then,  who  vote  for  the  ratification  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, vote  for  a  judiciary  system,  radically  defective,  and 
which  is  hable  to  great  abuse. 

But  I  must  pass  on  to  notice  what  I  deem 

A   FATAL   OMISSION. 

I  am  opposed  to  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution,  in  the 


358  Constitution  of  184.6. 

fourth  place,  because  it  does  not  secure  to  the  -people,  the 
right  to  elect  their  county  officers.  The  great  object  of  a 
fundamental  law  is  to  define  the  powers  conferred  upon  the 
government,  and  mark  out  the  rights  reserved  by  the  con- 
stituent body — the  people.  What  the  citizens  do  not  re- 
serve to  themselves,  is  impliedly  granted  to  their  govern- 
ment. —  Hence,  the  omission  on  this  subject  is  fatal  to  the 
whole  instrument.  The  people  have  no  security  in  the 
Constitution  that  the  right  of  electing  their  county  officers, 
will  be  suffered  to  remain  in  their  hands;  the  law-making 
department,  actuated  either  by  corrupt  motives,  or  fear  of 
the  people,  may  confide  that  power  to  the  Executive,  or 
exercise  it  itself,  and  the  people  have  no  remedy.  Now,  I 
do  not  anticipate  that  such  a  thing  will  be  attempted  now, 
but  in  the  course  and  changes  of  time  and  men,  it  may  be 
done,  and  if  the  people  would  be  safe,  they  should  secure 
the  right,  in  the  outset  of  their  State  career,  and  have  it 
inserted  in  their  fundamental  law.  It  would  seem  from  this 
neglect  to  secure  to  the  people  this  most  valuable  right, 
that  those  who  framed  the  Constitution,  and  those  who  had 
them  in  keeping,  in  their  eagerness  to  grasp  the  great 
offices  of  State,  entirely  overlooked  the  smaller  and  equally 
important  ones.  Yet  this  is  not  the  only  omission.  The 
Constitution  is  alike  defective  in  another  particular.  It  is 
entirely  silent  with  reference  to  county  and  township  or- 
ganization, and  makes  no  provision  for  the  election  of  town- 
ship officers  by  the  people.  Thus,  it  would  appear,  that  in 
this,  as  well  as  other  particulars,  the  substantial  interests  of 
the  community  have  been  wholly  disregarded. 

AMENDMENTS   OF  THE   CONSTITUTION. 

My  fifth  leading  reason  for  opposing  the  adoption  of 
the  Constitution,  is  based  on  the  article  which  provides  for 
amendments  of  that  instrument.  Not  a  single  letter  can  be 
stricken  from  it,  without  calling   a  Convention.     This  is 


The  Address  of  Wm.  Penn  Clark.  359 

impolitic,  as  well  as  unusual:  impolitic,  because  it  prevents 
those  modifications  which  experience  may  suggest;  and 
unusual,  because  it  is  unlike  the  Constitutions  of  any  of  the 
other  States.  If  we  adopt  the  Constitution,  we  take  it 
with  the  probability  that  it  will  remain  what  it  is  for  many 
years.  The  people  will  not  only  be  loath  to  incur  the 
expense  of  another  Convention,  but  the  history  of  the  past 
shows,  that  after  they  have  set  the  machinery  of  govern- 
ment in  motion,  and  become  familiar  with  its  operation,  it 
is  difficult  to  induce  them  to  make  a  change.  Thus,  in 
Virginia,  Ohio,  and  several  other  States,  effort  after  effort 
has  been  made  for  several  years,  to  get  the  consent  of  the 
people  to  call  Conventions  to  frame  new  Constitutions  for 
those  States,  the  population  and  business  of  the  communi- 
ties having  outgrown  their  present  Constitutions;  but  so  far 
without  success.  And  it  will  be  seen,  by  looking  at  the 
dates,  that  the  Constitutions  of  the  several  States  have 
averaged  twenty-five  years  of  service.  The  reason  of  this 
is  obvious.  As  soon  as  a  State  Government  is  completely 
organized,  a  body  of  men  is  created,  whose  interest  it  is  to 
sustain  the  existing  state  of  affairs.  Those  who  fill  the 
State,  county,  township,  and  even  school-district  offices, 
with  their  friends  and  dependents,  are  all  opposed  to  a 
change,  for  the  single  reason  that  that  change  may  rotate 
them  out  of  office.  This  class,  bound  together  by  the 
strong  tie  of  self-interest,  wield  a  powerful  influence,  and, 
by  concert  of  action,  may  give  tone  to  public  sentiment. 
This  office-holding  aristocracy  would  exist  here,  as  well  as 
elsewhere;  and  thus  the  Constitution,  acknowledged  to  be 
defective  by  its  warmest  friends,  would  be  strengthened 
and  sustained  by  those  who  gained  their  bread  from  it. 
To  overcome  this  influence,  and  obtain  the  formation  of 
another  fundamental  law,  would  require  such  a  torrent  of. 
popular  condemnation  as  we  need  not  anticipate  short  of 
a  quarter  of  a  century.     In  view  of  all  the  influences,  par- 


360  Constitution  of  1846. 

tizan  and  pecuniary,  which  will  be  brought  to  sustain  this 
instrument,  if  adopted,  I  regard  the  provision  under  consid- 
eration as  tantamount  to  telling  the  people  that  they  shall 
not  be  permitted,  for  a  great  number  of  years,  to  alter  or 
aboHsh  this  '*  model "  of  a  Constitution.  If  the  people  will 
but  put  the  yoke  upon  their  necks,  it  is  well  provided  with 
fastenings  to  keep  it  there. 

But  it  may  be  well  for  the  people  to  ascertain,  if  they 
can,  why  this  article  is  thrown  into  its  present  shape, 
instead  of  providing  as  do  all  the  other  State  Constitutions, 
that  the  Legislature  may  propose  amendments  to  the  Con- 
stitution, and  the  people  ratify  or  reject  them.  No  good 
reason,  certainly,  can  be  assigned  for  this  restriction  on 
the  rights  of  the  people. —  The  only  motive  I  can  think 
of,  which  could  induce  the  insertion  of  such  a  provision,  is 
this:  The  framers  of  the  Constitution  were  well  aware 
that  they  had  departed  from  the  legitimate  business  en- 
trusted to  them;  that  they  had  incorporated  into  their  work 
certain  partizan  dogmas  which  the  people  have  never 
approved,  and  the  expediency  and  propriety  of  which  were 
still  subjects  of  discussion. — They  feared  that  experience 
might  demonstrate,  as  it  has  done  heretofore,  that  the  fore- 
bodings of  their  opponents  were  well-founded,  and  their  pre- 
dictions had  become  sober  realities.  The  prohibition  of  incor- 
porations and  internal  improvements — the  experiment  with 
the  judiciary — the  restrictions  upon  the  inalienable  rights 
of  the  people — might  not  work  to  the  advantage  of  the 
commonwealth;  and  they  well  knew,  that  when  the  citizens 
felt  themselves  hampered,  and  their  interests  blasted,  under 
the  operation  of  these  provisions,  that  they  would  be 
prompt  to  throw  off  the  burthen.  Under  such  provisions 
for  amendment  as  are  to  be  found  in  the  other  State  Con- 
stitutions, the  obnoxious  articles  of  this  instrument  could  be 
laid  aside,  without  destroying  the  whole  fabric  of  govern- 
ment, or  exciting  the  hostility  of  all  who  have  a  personal 


The  Address  of  Wm.  Penn  Clark.  361 

interest  in  supporting  the  government.  Hence,  in  order  to 
establish  a  partizan  creed,  and  render  it  permanent,  even  at 
the  expense  of  the  people's  prosperity  and  happiness,  this 
article  on  Amendments  was  inserted.  It  is  for  the  people 
to  decide  which  they  will  choose,  their  own  welfare  or  this 
partizan  Constitution.     The  one  is  opposed  to  the  other. 

THE  SEAT   OF   GOVERNMENT. 

I  cannot  close  this  communication,  my  fellow  citizens, 
without  some  allusion  to  a  question  of  local  interest  to  the 
inhabitants  of  this  district.  I  refer  to  the  question  of  the 
location  of  the  seat  of  government  of  Iowa.  Iowa  City 
was  laid  out  with  a  view  to  its  being  the  permanent  capital 
of  the  State.  This  inducement  was  held  out  to  persons  to 
locate  here,  and  lots  were  sold  at  exhorbitant  rates.  A 
large  and  beautiful  building,  capable  of  accommodating 
every  branch  of  the  State  Government,  has  been  erected 
and  partially  finished,  at  an  expense  of  from  $80,000  to 
$100,000,  a  considerable  proportion  of  which  was  paid  by 
the  property  holders  of  this  city  and  county.  Yet  after  all 
this,  the  Southern  portion  of  the  Territory  has  manifested  an 
unceasing  hostility  to  Iowa  City,  and  a  determination  to 
remove  the  Capitol  to  some  other  point.  In  the  late  Con- 
vention, this  spirit  was  openly  avowed,  and  I  hesitate  not  to 
say,  that  the  proposed  boundaries  of  the  State  were  fixed 
with  a  view  to  the  removal  of  the  seat  of  government  to 
the  Raccoon  Forks.  Facts  prove  the  truth  of  this  remark. 
The  Convention,  after  having  the  question  of  boundaries 
before  it  for  several  days,  determined  on  the  old  conven- 
tional lines — the  natural  and  proper  boundaries  of  the  State 
of  Iowa.  This  result  became  known  to  the  South,  when  a 
certain  General  Government  officer,  who  aspires  to  promi- 
nence as  a  leading  politician,  came  post-haste  to  the  city  to 
represent  the  South  on  this  question,  and  regulate  the 
representatives  of  the  people.     Two  or  three  days  after  his 


362  Constitution  of  184.6.  • 

arrival,  Mr.  Steel,  of  Van  Buren,  proposed  to  amend  the 
article  on  boundaries,  by  inserting  the  article  as  it  now 
stands  in  the  Constitution.  The  subject  has  been  caucus- 
sed,  and  Steel's  resolution  was  adopted  by  the  following 
vote. 

Yeas  —  Berry,  Clark,  Conery,  Coop,  Dibble,  Galland, 
Grant,  Goodrell,  Hoskins,  Hedrick,  Hubbell,  Hobson,  Kent, 
Ross,  Steele,  Selman,  Shelledy,  Lowe. — 18. 

Nays — Bates,  Bissell,  Bowie,  Harned,  Haun,  Leffier, 
Matson,  McCraney,  O'Ferral,  Ronalds,  Richman,  Sanders. 

—13. 

[Yeas  in  italics,  northern  members;  nays  do.,  southern 
members.] 

Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  every  vote  but  tivo,  in  favor  of 
the  proposed  boundaries,  which  involve  the  location  of  the 
seat  of  government,  represented  southern  interests,  and 
that  the  great  question  of  territory  was  sacrificed  to  obtain 
possession  of  the  Capitol.  Four  Delegates  from  the  South 
voted  against  the  proposition;  but  I  could  account  very 
satisfactorily  for  that  fact  did  I  deem  it  necessary.  The 
ostensible  reason  given  for  this  change  of  boundary,  after 
it  had  been  once  determined,  is,  as  I  am  aware,  that  the 
territorial  committee  of  the  lower  House  of  Congress  had 
reported  a  bill  thus  defining  our  territorial  limits.  But  this 
was  only  a  part  of  the  game.  If  our  Delegate  is  of  any 
account  at  Washington,  he  must  have  had  something  to  do 
with  the  committee  which  thus  fixed  our  State  boundary; 
and  it  is  not  unfair  to  infer  that  the  boundary  he  asked  for, 
he  obtained.  Mr.  Dodge,  we  all  know,  is  the  representa- 
tive of  Southern  interests  almost  exclusively,  and  that  the 
greater  part  of  his  time  is  devoted  to  the  advancement  of 
the  Desmoines  valley.  Certain  it  is,  that  in  his  recent 
speech  before  Congress,  advocating  the  bill  reported  to  the 
House  of  Representatives,  he  makes  no  intimation  that  the 
proposed  boundaries  met  his  disapprobation,  or  embrace 


k 


The  Address  of  Wm.  Penn  Clark.  363 

less  territory  than  he  desired  Iowa  to  obtain.  But  instead 
of  confining  himself  to  his  appropriate  duties,  he  travels 
beyond  them,  and  undertakes  to  assure  Congress  that  "  a 
very  large  portion  of  the  people  of  Iowa  believe  and  desire 
that  their  ultimate  seat  of  government  should  be  on  the 
Desmoines  river."  Thus  it  is  that  our  Delegate  in  Con- 
gress, instead  of  representing  the  whole  Territory,  repre- 
sents its  southern  extreme,  and,  together  with  the  southern 
Delegates  in  the  late  Convention,  is  found  laboring  to 
despoil  us,  and  promote  the  interests  of  speculators  and 
land-jobbers  in  the  south-west.  Either  of  the  other 
boundaries,  with  a  provision  fixing  the  seat  of  government 
here  for  twenty  years,  would  have  saved  us  from  the  ruin 
that  is  now  impending  over  our  heads. 

The  Constitution  provides  that  the  seat  of  Government 
shall  remain  at  Iowa  City  "  until  removed  by  law."  Let 
us  see,  then,  what  are  the  probabilities  as  to  its  removal. 
The  South  and  the  South-west  have  not  only  the  will,  but 
the  numerical  strength  to  take  it  from  us.  The  following 
table  will  show  the  relative  strength  of  the  rival  points 
(Iowa  City  and  the  Raccoon  Forks,)  in  the  General 
Assembly  under  the  Constitution,  if  that  instrument  is 
ratified : 

Senators.         Rep's. 
Raccoon  Forks,     ...       12  26 

Iowa  City, 7  13 

5  13 

This  apportionment,  it  will  be  seen,  gives  the  former 
place  a  majority  oifive  in  the  Senate  and  thirteen  in  the 
House,  over  the  latter.  Are  we  not,  then,  in  the  hands  of 
the  Philistines  ?  The  proposed  boundaries  are  so  formed 
as  to  throw  the  Raccoon  Forks  into  the  center  of  popula- 
tion for  the  next  fifty  years,  and  the  ascendency  they 
enjoy  now,  they  will  be  likely  to  maintain  for  a  consider- 


364  Constitution  of  1846. 

able  period  of  time. — Ultimately,  however,  the  center  and 
the  North  will  be  the  flower  of  the  State,  and  the  most 
densely  populated.  Now,  what  will  be  the  train  of  argu- 
ment which  will  be  urged  in  favor  of  the  removal  ?  It  will 
be  said,  that  the  present  building  is  unfinished;  that  to 
complete  it,  will  cost  as  much  as  would  erect  a  smaller  and 
less  expensive  one  at  the  rival  point;  that  it  would  be  folly 
to  expend  money  on  this  work,  and  subsequently  remove 
the  seat  of  government  elsewhere;  and  thus  many  persons 
in  other  portions  of  the  State,  who  are  indifferent  to  the 
subject,  and  unadvised  as  to  the  injustice  which  will  be 
done  us,  may  be  induced  to  vote  for  candidates  who  will 
carry  out  this  scheme.  To  quiet  the  center,  we  shall 
probably  be  promised  a  State  University,  or  something  of 
that  character,  and  then  be  cheated  in  the  end;  for  the 
State  will  not  locate  such  an  institution  in  the  same  place 
where  there  are  already  one  or  two  chartered  institutions 
of  learning  in  operation.  Those,  then,  who  vote  for  the 
ratification  of  the  Constitution,  do  so  with  the  almost  moral 
certainty  that  the  removal  of  the  seat  of  government  from 
this  point,  will  be  one  of  the  first  consequences  of  its  adop- 
tion. It  is  for  every  citizen  to  decide,  whether  he  can  con- 
sistently vote  to  destroy  the  value  of  his  own  property,  in 
order  to  obtain  the  fictitious  advantages  of  a  State  Govern- 
ment. 

But,  fellow-citizens,  I  must  bring  this  address — which  is 
already  longer  than  I  intended — to  a  close.  I  have  ex- 
pressed as  briefly  as  possible,  and  with  the  utmost  frank- 
ness, my  views  of  the  various  important  questions  involved 
in  the  adoption  of  the  proposed  Constitution,  and  the 
reasons  which  will  influence  me  to  cast  my  vote  against  it. 
So  far  as  I  am  individually  concerned  in  the  present  can- 
vass, I  have  only  to  say,  that  I  am  before  you  as  the  repre- 
sentative of  principle;  and  if  my  principles  accord  with  your 
own,  and  you  believe  me    trust-worthy,   and  capable  of 


Press  Comments  Relative  to  the  Constitution.       365 

representing  you  in  the  Council,  remember  me  at  the  bal- 
lot-box on  the  first  Monday  of  August  next. 

Your  fellow-citizen, 
Iowa  City,  July  20,  1846.  Wm.  Penn.  Clark.  ^ 

— Refrinted from  The  Iowa  Standard,  New  Series,  Vol. 
/.,  No,  6,  July  20,  1846. 


THE  CONSTITUTION. 

********** 

We  are  not  surprised  that  the  Constitution,  with  its  glar- 
ing defects,  has  been  adopted.  The  people  were  anxious 
to  go  into  the  Union;  and  a  small  majority  of  voters  was 
found,  who  voted  for  it  from  motives  of  temporary  expe- 
diency, believing  that  amendments  could  be  made  before  any 
serious  inconvenience  could  result  from  some  of  the  foolish 
restrictions  imposed  on  the  legislature.  In  this,  we  think 
they  have  acted  unwisely.  They  may  not  find  it  so  easy  a 
matter  to  amend,  as  they  imagined.  The  first  Constitution 
provided  for  amendments  without  the  trouble  and  expense 
of  calling  a  Convention.  But  this  salutary  provision  was 
stricken  out  in  the  new  Constitution  to  prevent  the  amend- 
ment of  the  Ninth  Article,  relative  to  corporations.  The 
members  knew  full  well,  that  if  that  article  could  be  sub- 
mitted to  the  people  singly,  for  adoption  or  rejection,  that 
it  would  be  voted  down  by  thousands.  The  provision  for 
specific  amendments  was  therefore  stricken  out,  through 
the  wily  influence  of  the  Radicals.  They  thought  that  the 
people  were  so  anxious  to  become  a  State,  that  they  would 
not  vote  against  a  Constitution  which,  in  the  main,  was  un- 
exceptionable; and  by  removing  the  facility  of  amending  it, 
they  would  fasten  upon  the  inhabitants  of  Iowa  the  new- 
fangled policy  of  an  exclusive  metallic  currency.    We  give 

»  Clarke. 


366  Constitution  of  184.6. 

the  hards  credit  for  the  smartness  of  the  trick;  but  unfor- 
tunately for  them,  it  was  discovered  before  the  election. 
The  Constitution  has  been  formally  adopted,  as  a  whole; 
but  the  Ninth  Article^  and  one  or  two  other  minor  clauses, 
have  been  reserved  for  further  consideration,  in  committee 
of  the  whole. 

Three-fourths  of  the  people  of  Iowa  have  determined, 
that  cost  what  it  may,  the  Ninth  Article  shall  not  remain 
unaltered,  in  the  Constitution;  and  they  will  make  it  a 
question  at  every  election,  until  there  is  an  unqualified  ex- 
pression of  the  public  will  respecting  it. 

The  opponents  of  an  exclusive  hard  money  currency, 
will  vote  for  no  man,  Whig  or  Democrat,  who  will  not 
pledge  himself  in  advance  that  he  will  exercise  his  official 
influence  to  cause  an  amendment  or  an  expurgation  of  this 
Ninth  Article. 

The  Eleventh  Article  of  the  Constitution  provides  that 
"  if  at  any  time  the  General  Assembly  shall  think  it  neces- 
sary to  revise  or  amend  this  Constitution,  they  shall 
provide  by  law  for  a  vote  of  the  people,  for  a  Conven- 
tion, at  the  next  ensuing  election  for  members  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly,"  &c.;  and  the  loth  section  of  the  Fifth  Ar- 
ticle provides  that  the  "  Governor  shall  communicate  by 
message  to  the  General  Assembly,  at  every  session,  the 
condition  of  the  State,  and  reco^nmend  stick  matters  as  he 
shall  deem  expedient.''^ — Hence  it  is  important  that  the  can- 
didates for  Governor,  Senators  and  Representatives,  should 
make  known  their  views  in  regard  to  the  Constitutional 
defects,  and  that  they  explicitly  indicate  their  intention,  if 
elected,  to  provide  by  law  for  a  vote  of  the  people  for  and 
against  a  Convention  to  revise  or  amend  the  Constitution. 

We  shall  be  met  by  our  opponents  with  the  plausible  ob- 
jection, that  we  have  already  had  two  Conventions,  and 
that  the  people  ought  not  to  be  taxed  with  the  expense  of 
a  third  one.     To  this  we  reply,  that  it  will  cost  nothing  to 


Press  Comments  Relative  to  the  Constitution.       '^6*1 

take  the  vote  on  the  expediency  of  calling  a  Convention; 
and  if  a  majority  of  the  people  vote  for  it,  they  are  entitled 
to  one.  The  expense  is  a  minor  consideration.  The  peo- 
ple would  lose  more,  in  the  term  of  five  years,  by  retaining 
the  Ninth  Article,  than  would  be  the  cost  of  half  a  dozen 
Conventions.  Besides,  it  is  useless  to  incur  a  large  debt 
for  this  purpose.  Twenty  members  can  make  the  required 
amendments,  as  well  as  one  hundred;  and  the  whole  duty 
could  be  performed  in  a  single  week. 

We  shall  resume  this  subject  as  soon  as  the  Governor's 
proclamation  shall  be  issued,  appointing  the  day  of  election. 

— Reprinted  from  The  Iowa  Standard,  New  Series,  Vol. 
/.,  No.  10,  August  ig,  184.6. 

>   .  ADMISSION  OF  IOWA. 

We  give  place,  in  this  paper,  to  the  late  act  of  Congress, 
defining  the  boundaries  of  the  State  of  Iowa,  and  to  repeal 
so  much  of  the  act  of  the  3d  March,  1845,  as  relates  to  the 
boundaries,  and  so  much  of  the  first  named  act  as  relates  to 
Iowa,  with  the  supplemental  act  of  the  same  date.  These 
are  all  the  acts  of  Congress  relating  to  the  admission  of 
Iowa  into  the  Union;  and  taken  together,  they  will  be  found 
to  be  a  disgraceful  piece  of  legislative  patch-work.  There 
is  not  the  slightest  allusion  to  the  Constitution  of  1846,  un- 
der which  it  is  presumed  we  enter  the  Union;  but,  from  all 
that  appears  from  the  three  several  acts,  Iowa  enters  the 
Union  under  the  rejected  Constitution  of  1844,  with  the  ad- 
dition of  one  member  of  Congress,  and  a  change  of  the 
boundaries;  and  the  date  of  her  admission  is  the  3d  of  March, 
1845,  instead  of  the  4th  of  August,  1846,  the  date  of  the 
last  act. 

If  our  Locofoco  editors  can  come  to  any  other  conclusion, 
we  will  thank  them  for  their  rules  of  construction.  We 
have  read  the  Acts  over  and  over  again,  and  for  the  life  of 


368  Constitutwn  of  184.6. 

us  we  cannot  tell  whether  Iowa  is  now  in  or  out  of  the 
Union;  and  if  she  is  out,  what  ulterior  steps  must  be  taken 
to  consummate  her  admission. 

The  Constitution  which  was  adopted  and  signed  by  the 
Convention,  Nov.  i,  1844,  contains  this  provision  in  the  6th 
section  of  the  3d  Article : 

"  This  Constitution,  together  with  w-hatever  conditions 
may  be  made  to  the  same  by  Congress,  shall  be  ratified  or 
rejected  by  the  vote  of  the  qualified  electors  of  this  Terri- 
tory, at  the  township  elections  in  April  next,  in  the  manner 
prescribed  by  the  act  of  the  Legislative  Assembly  provid- 
ing for  the  holding  of  this  Convention.  Pj'ovided,  however, 
That  the  General  Assembly  of  this  State  may  ratify  or  re- 
ject any  conditions  Congress  may  make  to  this  Constitu- 
tion, after  the  first  Monday  in  April  next." 

This  Constitution  was  submitted  to  the  people  in  April, 
and  rejected.  On  the  3d  of  March  following,  before  the 
result  was  known  at  Washington,  Congress  passed  the  act 
for  the  admission  of  Iowa,  with  an  especial  reference  to  this 
Constitution,  which  was  then  a  dead  letter.  Iowa,  at  that 
time,  being  a  Territory  without  a  Constitution  the  act  of 
Congress  admitting  her  became,  in  consequence  of  the 
reason  0/  the  enachnent  ceasing,  dead  and  inoperative  from 
thenceforth  and  forever,  so  far  as  she  was  concerned,  unless 
revived  by  the  subsequent  enactment.  This  has  not  been 
done,  unless  the  late  act  does  it  by  implication;  and  if  it 
does  revive  it,  the  Congressional  history  in  reference  to 
this  territory  will  be  a  curiosity.  It  will  show,  that  from 
the  3d  of  March,  1845,  to  the  4th  of  August,  1846,  Iowa 
was  a  Territory,  receiving  appropriations  to  carry  on  her 
Territorial  government,  and  that  she  was  at  the  same  time 
a  member  of  the  Confederacy,  and  with  a  Constitution  that 
never  had  a  political  existence. 

There  can  be  no  apology  for  this  cloud  of  ambiguity, 
the  slightest  attention  to  the  wording  of  the  late  act  would 


Press  Comments  Relative  to  the  Constitution.       369 

have  made  our  path  plain  and  perspicuous.  The  first  act 
of  admission,  so  far  as  related  to  Iowa,  was  dead;  but  to 
make  everything  plain,  there  should  have  been  a  new  bill 
framed,  having  reference  to  the  Constitution  formed  in 
May  last,  then  before  Congress,  and  repealing  the  two  acts 
of  March  3d,  1845.  Instead  of  this,  an  act  is  passed  defin- 
ing the  boundaries  of  the  State  of  Iowa  —  being  precisely 
the  same  contained  in  the  new  Constitution  —  recognizing 
the  proposed  adjustment  of  the  Southern  line  —  giving  us 
another  member  of  Congress,  without  any  official  return  of 
our  population  —  and  then  winding  up  with  a  repeal  of  so 
much  of  the  act  admitting  Iowa  and  Florida,  approved 
March  3d,  1845,  as  came  in  conflict  with  the  provisions  of 
that  act;  all  the  while,  leaving  the  supplemental  act  unno- 
ticed—  neither  repealed  nor  revived.  This  supplemental 
act  was  passed,  also,  with  reference  to  the  Constitution  of 
1844. 

Why  were  not  the  grants  contained  in  the  6th  section, 
made  in  lieu  of  the  propositions  of  the  late  Conventions  ? 
The  propositions  of  the  Convention  of  1844  were  rejected. 
How  is  it  with  those  made  by  the  Convention  of  1846  ? 
They  were  before  Congress  on  the  4th  of  August,  1846. 
The  ordinance  of  the  first  Convention  was  declared  not  to 
be  obligatory  on  the  United  States :  there  is  nothing  said 
about  the  one  appended  to  the  Constitution  of  1846.  Where 
are  we  —  in,  or  out  of  the  Union  ? 

— Reprinted  from  The  Iowa  Standard,  JVew  Series,  Vol. 
/.,  A'^o,  14,  Sept.  16,  184.6. 

IOWA  NOT  A  STATE  YET. 

Having  seen  it  announced  in  the  papers  that  an  act  has 
been  passed,  defining  the  boundaries  of  Iowa,  and  admit- 
ting her  into  the  Union  as  an  independent  State,  with  two 
Representatives  in  Congress,  until  the  next  census  and  ap- 
24 


370  Constitution  of  184.6, 

portionment,  I  was  led  to  believe  that  such  was  the  fact. 
But  to  my  utter  astonishment  upon  reading  the  act  alluded 
to,  I  find  that  Iowa  is  still  a  Territory,  and  must  so  remain 
until  Congress  shall  by  a  solemn  act  declare,  that  having 
examined  her  Constitution  formed  at  Iowa  City,  in  May 
last,  and  finding  it  to  be  republican,  she  is  admitted  into  the 
Union  as  a  free  and  independent  State. 

Strange  as  it  may  appear,  Iowa  has  not  yet  applied  for 
admission,  under  her  present  Constitution ;  nor  did  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Convention  anticipate  an  application  for  this 
purpose  until  after  their  proposed  Constitution  should  be 
accepted  by  the  people,  to  whom  it  was  submitted.  They 
made  a  provision  for  the  election  of  a  Governor,  other 
State  oflScers,  and  members  of  the  Legislature,  to  be  in 
readiness  to  assume  their  official  functions  as  soon  as  Con- 
gress should  pass  the  act  of  admission;  but  they  unfortun- 
ately designated  the  first  Monday  in  December,  or  there- 
abouts, for  the  meeting  of  the  first  General  Assembly — the 
day  on  which  Congress  meets.  The  members  of  the  Leg- 
islature of  the  embryo  State  may  meet  on  that  day,  and 
adjourn;  but  they  cannot  constitutionally  organize,  until 
officially  informed  that  Iowa  is  a  State,  which  cannot  be 
earlier  than  the  first  of  January.  The  Governor  elect  can 
not  qualify,  because  Governor  Clarke  is  entitled  to  hold  his 
office  until  Iowa  ceases  to  be  a  Territory;  and  he  will  have 
a  Territorial  Legislature,  ready  to  occupy  the  Capitol  on 
the  very  day  appointed  for  State  organization.  If  there  is 
an  appropriation  to  defray  the  expenses,  (  and  I  understand 
that  there  is,)  the  Territorial  Legislature  can  sit  during  the 
month  of  December. 

Gen.  Dodge  is  still  our  Delegate  to  Congress,  and  he 
has  not  only  a  right,  but  it  is  his  duty  to  go  on  to  Congress, 
and  attend  to  our  interests  as  a  Territory,  until  the  State  is 
organized.  The  State  Legislature  had  better  not  assemble 
until  the  first  of  January.     It  cannot  organize  while  we  are 


The  Governor's  Proclamation.  371 

a  Territory.  If  the  members  should  attepipt  to  legislate 
before  Iowa  becomes  a  State,  their  acts  would  be  null  and 
void,  and  the  judges  would  be  bound  so  to  declare  them. 

Iowa  has  been  unfortunate  in  her  attempts  to  become  a 
State.  She  was  first  admitted  with  a  Constitution  which 
the  people  rejected; — the  Territorial  Legislature  ordered 
the  people  to  try  again — and  again  they  rejected  it. 
Another  Convention  was  called,  and  another  Constitution 
presented,  which  the  people  accepted  by  a  'tight  squeeze' 
— supposing  that  Congress  would  pass  some  law,  which 
would  admit  us  into  the  Union  on  the  plan  proposed  in  the 
act  of  the  3d  of  March,  1845,  when  we  applied  for  admis- 
sion before.  They  will  be  greatly  surprised  and  chagrined 
when  they  learn  that  all  that  has  been  done  amounts  to,  a 
change  of  change  of  boundaries — the  allowance  of  two 
members  of  Congress  when  we  become  a  State — and  a 
repeal  of  so  much  of  the  act  of  March  3d,  1845,  as  defined 
our  boundaries. 

low  AN. 

— Reprinted  from  The  Iowa  Standard^  New  Series,  Vol. 
/.,  No.  14.,  Sept.  16,  184.6. 

BY  THE  GOVERNOR  OF  THE  TERRITORY 
OF  IOWA. 

PROCLAMATION. 

Returns  having  been  received  at  the  office  of  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Territory  of  the  votes  taken  for  and  against  the 
Constitution,  at  the  general  election  held  on  the  third  day 
of  August,  last,  in  all  the  organized  counties  thereof  except 
Deleware  and  Buchanan,  in  conformity  to  the  provisions  of 
"An  act  to  provide  for  the  election  of  Delegates  to  a  Con- 
vention to  form  a  Constitution  and  State  Government," 
approved  January  17,  1846;  and  the  said  votes  so  returned 


372  Constitution  of  1846. 

having  been  counted  in  the  presence  of  the  undersigned, 
Governor  of  the  said  Territory,  and  examined  and  com- 
pared as  contemplated  by  law :  It  is  hereby  declared  and 
made  known,  ( in  compliance  with  the  spirit  and  intention 
of  the  provisions  of  said  act,)  that  there  were  given,  in  the 
counties  from  which  returns  have  been  received,  nine 
thousand  four  hundred  and  ninety  two  votes  for  the  Con- 
stitution, and  nine  thousand  and  thirty-six  votes  against  it, 
making  a  majority  of  FOUR  hundred  and  fifty-six  votes 
in  favor  of  the  Constitution :  And  whereas,  said  majority 
exceeds  by  three  hundred  and  seventy-nine  votes  the 
aggregate  vote  cast  at  the  election  held  in  August,  1845, 
for  Delegate  to  Congress,  in  the  counties  not  returned,  thus 
making  it  manifest,  in  the  absence  of  complete  returns, 
that  a  majority  of  votes  have  been  cast  in  favor  of  the 
adoption  of  the  Constitution :  It  is  therefore  conformably 
to  the  provisions  of  the  statute,  hereby  proclaimed,  that  the 
Constitution  for  the  State  of  Iowa,  adopted  in  Convention 
on  the  eighteenth  day  of  May,  1846,  has  been  formally 
ratified  and  adopted  by  the  people. 

And  whereas,  under  the  Constitution  thus  adopted,  it 
is  made  the  duty  of  the  Governor  of  the  Territory  to  desig- 
nate, by  proclamation,  a  day  for  the  holding  of  the  first 
general  election  for  the  selection  of  State  officers,  and 
members  of  the  first  State  Legislature :  Be  it  therefore 
known,  that  Monday,  the  26th  Day  of  October  next, 
is  the  day  fixed  upon  for  the  holding  of  said  State  election, 
at  which  time  the  qualified  electors  of  Iowa  will  elect  one 
Governor,  two  representatives  in  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States,  one  Secretary  of  State,  one  State  Auditor, 
one  State  Treasurer,  and  such  number  of  members  of  the 
Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  State  as  are 
designated  and  provided  for  in  article  thirteen  of  said  Con- 
stitution. Said  elections,  under  said  Constitution,  are  to  be 
conducted  in  all  respects  according  to  the  existing  laws  of 


I 


Press  Comments  Relative  to  the  Constitution.      373 

the  Territory,  except  only  in  such  cases  as  the  same  may 
be  found  to  conflict  with  the  Constitution  under  which  the 
election  will  be  held. 

(  \  In  Testimony  whereof,  I  have  hereunto 

I    L.S.     >        subscribed  my  name,  and  caused  the  Seal 
'  .-^-Y— »>  J        of  the  Territory  to  be  affixed. 

Done  at  Burlington,  this  ninth  day  of  September,  in  the 
year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  forty-six, 
and  of  the  Independence  of  the  United  States  the  seventy- 
first. 

By  the  Governor: 

James  Clarke. 
Jesse  Williams, 

Secretary  of  the  Territory. 

— Reprinted  from  The  Iowa  Standard^  New  Series,  Vol. 
I.,  JVo.  14,  Sept.  16,  184.6. 


THE  ELECTION. 

Our  gratification  at  the  result  of  the  election  in  this 
county  for  a  delegate  to  the  Convention  to  form  a  Consti- 
tution cannot  well  be  expressed  without  a  short  review  of 
the  canvass,  and  the  circumstances  which  led  to  it. 

For  some  years  past  the  only  political  press  in  this  county 
has  been  in  the  hands  and  under  the  control  of  the  democ- 
racy. That  party  has,  with  a  few  accidental  exceptions, 
been  in  the  majority  ever  since  the  party  lines  have  been 
drawn  in  Iowa. — Within  the  last  few  months  the  former 
editor  of  the  Herald,  in  a  series  of  ably  written  articles, 
called  the  attention  of  the  people  to  those  principles  which, 
in  his  opinion,  should  govern  in  the  formation  of  a  Consti- 
tution; the  most  prominent  of  which  were,  no  banks,  no 
corporations,  an  elective  judiciary. — We  say  ably  written 
articles,  because  all  the  arguments  that  could  be  brought  to 


374  Constitution  of  184.6. 

bear  upon  his  doctrines  were  fairly  presented  in  a  style 
and  manner  well  calculated  to  call  the  people's  attention 
to  them,  and  lead  them  to  reflection.  It  was  in  the 
midst  of  the  heat  of  this  political  effort  that  the  Whigs  of 
Muscatine  nominated  J.  Scott  Richman,  Esq.,  as  their  can- 
didate for  Convention.  Immediately  on  the  annunciation 
of  the  choice,  by  nomination,  of  Mr.  Richman  as  a  candi- 
date, he  arose  and  manifested  his  acceptance  of  the  nomi- 
nation, and  in  a  few  remarks  which  could  not  be  misunder- 
stood, gave  his  views  of  what  the  leading  features  of  the 
Constitution,  in  his  opinion,  should  be.  These  views  were 
expressed  in  the  presence  of  many  of  the  prominent  men 
of  both  parties,  and  were  mainly  in  opposition  to  those 
presented  in  the  Hearld,  the  accredited  organ  of  the  dem- 
ocratic party.  These  views  were  reiterated  in  the  succeed- 
ing canvass,  and  were  understood  throughout  the  county. 

— Reprinted  from  The  Blootnington  Herald,  Vol.  /.,  JVo. 
I,  April  17,  184.6. 

THE  CONVENTION. 

The  Convention  for  the  formation  of  a  State  Govern- 
ment meets  on  the  first  Monday  in  next  month.  We  feel  a 
deep  interest  in  the  proceedings  of  this  Convention,  because 
upon  its  action  we  believe  depends  the  question  whether 
we  are  to  have  a  State  Government  or  not.  The  great 
mass  of  our  citizens  are  desirous  that  Iowa  should  take  her 
place  among  the  independent  States  of  the  Union.  It  is 
nevertheless  true  that  whatever  Constitution  be  adopted, 
with  the  boundaries  as  now  proposed,  there  will  be  sec- 
tional opposition  growing  out  of  that  question  of  boundary. 
If  a  Constitution  be  framed  upon  the  model  of  the  consti- 
tution of  the  United  States  and  the  different  States  already 
framed,  sufficient  to  set  the  State  Government  in  motion, 


Press  Comments  Relative  to  the  Constitution.       375 

secure  life,  liberty,  and  the  rights  of  property  to  the  citi- 
zen, it  must,  notwithstanding  such  opposition,  be  adopted 
by  a  large  majority.  But  on  the  other  hand,  let  this  Con- 
stitution be  prostituted  to  party  purposes — instead  of  secur- 
ing personal  rights,  let  it  define  party  positions,  taking  for 
its  basis  the  decrees  of  a  Baltimore  Convention,  instead  of 
adopting  the  tried  provisions  of  other  State  Constitutions — 
and  it  will  become  the  province  of  the  Whig  party  to 
defeat  it.  Desirous  as  the  people  of  this  Territory  may  be 
that  a  State  Government  should  be  formed,  and  intimately 
connected  as  they  may  think  it  with  the  prosperity  of  the 
country,  we  know  that  the  right  of  rejection  has  been  exer- 
cised, and  will  be  again,  if  necessary.  The  responsibility 
of  such  rejection  must  rest  with  those  who  will  venture  to 
thrust  their  party  faith  and  maxims  upon  the  people  in  the 
form  of  a  Constitution.  Such  gross  perversion  of  a  solemn 
instrument  to  further  party  purposes  deserves  rebuke. 

We  do  not  consider  the  duties  of  the  members  of  this 
Convention  as  very  arduous.  If  they  are  wise,  they  will 
find  in  the  twenty-six  other  Constitutions  within  their  reach, 
their  work  prepared  to  their  hands;  the  rights  of  the  state 
and  subject  are  there  well  defined  laws,  which  have  been 
tried  for  years,  and  under  which  the  several  States  have 
flourished — answering  all  the  objects  of  their  creation. 
But  this  is  unfortunately  an  age  of  originality  and  invention 
— we  are  not  only  all  sovereigns,  but  also  all  statesmen  by 
birthright,  and  it  cannot  be  otherwise  than  that  the  spirit  of 
the  age  should  find  its  way  into  this  body.  The  character 
of  the  Constitution  must,  we  think,  decide  its  fate  before 
the  people.  If  then  the  party  in  the  majority  is  really 
desirous  of  establishing  a  State  government,  we  say  it 
depends  upon  that  party  to  form  such  government  or  not, 
by  presenting  such  a  Constitution  as  shall  not  be  offensive  to 
a  large  body  of  the  people.     If  the  Whigs  cannot  have  the 


376  Constitution  of  1846. 

framing  of  a  good  Constitution,  in  the  present  position  of 
parties  and  interest,  they  can  defeat  a  bad  one. 

— Reprinted  from  The  Blooinington  Herald,  New  Series, 
Vol.  /.,  No.  I,  Ap-il  17,  1846. 

AN  ELECTIVE  JUDICIARY. 

If  any  credit  for  originality  is  due  for  the  idea  of  electing 
the  highest  judicial  officers  by  the  people,  Muscatine  county 
is  entitled  to  it.  Not,  perhaps,  the  -people  of  the  county; 
but  one  of  the  candidates  for  the  old  Convention  after  his 
nomination  by  a  democratic  meeting,  embodied  the  dogma 
in  his  political  confession,  merely  to  show  that  he  was 
different  from  all  other  men.  His  election  to  a  seat  in  the 
Convention,  if  we  are  to  give  credit  to  the  leaders  of  the 
democratic  party,  was  the  result  of  one  of  those  accidents 
that  sometimes  happen  in  the  heat  of  political  strife,  and 
which  sometimes  make  a  man  great  in  spite  of  himself. 
Through  this  means  the  idea  found  its  way  into  the  Con- 
vention and  thence  into  the  Constitution.  It  was  not 
embodied  there  because  either  experience  or  reason  had 
tested  its  wisdom;  but  was  placed  there  because  it  was  an 
experiment — the  same  reason  that  prompted  many  other  an- 
omalous passages  in  that  monument  of  folly;  and,  although 
this  feature  struck  Gen.  Dodge  as  one  of  singular  beauty 
amongst  all  the  other  beauties  of  that  beautiful  State  paper, 
yet  it  never  has  been  a  favorite  measure  with  the  people. 
Nay,  we  have  good  reason  to  believe  that  that  feature  con- 
tributed in  a  great  degree  to  the  first  and  second  rejections 
of  that  project  of  a  Constitution  for  Iowa. 

Let  it  here  be  understood  that  democratic  resolves  ( so 
called)  by  a  junta  who  vainly  imagine  themselves  the 
democracy,  do  not  always  find  favor  with  the  democratic 
people.  A  striking  illustration  of  this  truth  is  to  be  found 
in  the  recommendation  of  the  Convention  which  met   last 


Press  Comments  Relative  to  the  Constitution.       377 

summer  at  Iowa  City,  to  nominate  Gen.  Dodge  for  Con- 
gress, alluded  to  by  the  editor  of  the  Herald  in  one  of  his 
most  ably  written  appeals  of  the  21st  March.  He  says  an 
elective  judiciary  is  a  favorite  measure  with  the  democracy 
and  was  recommended  by  that  Convention;  and  was  advo- 
cated by  Gen.  Dodge  long  after  it  was  known  to  be  operat- 
ing to  his  disadvantage;  yet,  in  the  face  of  this  truth  (for 
there  is  nothing  more  true)  the  editor  of  the  Herald  insists 
that  it  is  a  favorite  measure  with  the  people.  Cogent  and 
clear  as  that  gentleman  generally  was  on  most  subjects 
with  which  he  has  treated  the  people  for  a  year  past,  he 
seems  to  have  fallen  into  a  mist  here.  His  erroneous 
reasoning  is  the  result  of  mistaking  the  democratic  -party 
for  the  democratic  people.  This  mistake  is  neither  singular 
nor  dishonest,  but  arises  from  an  ardent  temperament  and 
a  laudable  zeal  for  the  success  of  a  favorite  protege.  Three 
honest  tailors  in  Threadneedle  street,  London,  in  under- 
taking to  execute  some  treasonable  plot  by  conspiracy 
against  the  government,  commenced  their  paper  with  "We 
the  people  of  England." 

But  surely,  one  might  suppose  that  the  conductors  of  the 
public  press,  as  well  as  the  conductors  of  public  opinion, 
might  well  be  excused  in  abandoning,  even  a  favorite 
measure  in  political  economy  when  its  advocates  have 
twice  submitted  the  question  distinctly  to  the  people  of 
Iowa,  and  they  so  often  repudiating  it  as  heterodox.  In 
the  late  election  for  a  delegate  to  the  Convention,  the 
people  of  this  county  have  again  set  their  seal  of  reproba- 
tion upon  it,  after  hearing  and  reading  the  arguments  of  its 
ablest  advocate,  and  with  the  strongest  man  of  their  party 
for  a  candidate.  Certainly,  then,  both  old  Muscatine  and 
the  Territory  have  shaken  their  skirts  of  this  taint,  this  sin 
of  advocating  an  elective  judiciary. — Let  there  be  an  end, 
then,  of  urging  the  measure  upon  the  people  for  reason 
that  they  are  in  favor  of  it,  whilst  there  exists  the  strongest 


378  Constitution  of  184.6. 

evidence  that  they  are  against  it.  But  other  reasons  are 
urged  for  an  elective  judiciary. 

''Consistency,"  [  says  the  Herald  of  the  21st  March,] 
"  requires  it.  The  democratic  Territorial  Convention, 
which  in  June  last  nominated  Gen.  Dodge  for  Congress, 
adopted  a  resolution  [  we  quote  from  the  Herald  of  the 
above  date,]  approving  in  the  most  decided  terms,  of  the 
provisions  of  the  old  Constitution,  pre-eminent  among  which 
stood  that  of  an  elective  judiciary.  By  the  adoption  of 
that  resolution  and  by  its  subsequent  course  of  action,  the 
democratic  party  decidedly  and  irrevocably  pledged  them- 
selves to  sustain  the  principles  of  an  elective  judiciary.  ♦ 
*  *  *  *  and  unless  our  principles  change  with  every 
waning  moon  and  assume  by  turns  all  the  colors  of  the 
chameleon,  we  are  bound  by  every  principle  which  should 
actuate  honorable  and  consistent  men,  to  stand  by  our  arms 
and  untiringly  advocate  the  principles  which  we  cherish  so 
fondly." 

All  this  sounds  very  well — is  quite  chivalrous  and,  per- 
haps, democratic.  The  party,  says  the  Herald,  should 
adhere  with  the  most  unyielding  pertinacity  to  principles 
once  announced.  Whilst  the  leaders  of  the  party  assume 
this  as  a  rule  of  action,  it  is  hoped  that  they  will  allow  the 
people  to  act  from  the  same  reasonable  motives.  The 
■peofle,  the  de^nocratic  people  have  passed  a  resolution 
twice  over  at  the  ballot  box,  that  they  will  not  have  an 
elective  judiciary.  Think  you  that  they  will  be  less  tena- 
cious of  their  deliberately  expressed  opinions  than  your- 
selves ?  Why  do  you  prescribe  one  rule  of  action  for 
yourselves  and  a  different  one  for  the  people  ?  Ah, 
Doctor  !  Doctor  !  you  are  entirely  too  honest  a  man  for 
your  party.  You  have  disclosed  honestly  and  argued 
fairly  the  purposes  and  principles  of  your  party,  and  the 
issue  is  decidedly  against  you.  Would  to  God  all  conduc- 
tors of  the  public  democratic  press  were  equally  honest, 


Press  Comments  Relative  to  the  Constitution.      379 

then  would  locofocoism  and  double  dealing  cease  from  the 
land — then  would  the  people  understand  what  the  leaders 
of  the  democratic  party  want  with  them,  and  they  would 
act  with  a  knowledge  of  their  rights.  But  in  this  issue 
between  the  party  on  the  one  side  and  the  people  on  the 
other,  we  are  by  no  means  certain  that  the  few  will  not 
control  the  many.  The  like  has  happened,  and  when  the 
like  ceases  to  occur  the  democratic  party,  as  at  present 
organized,  will  cease  to  exist. 

But  supposing  it  to  be  a  new  question  and  that  the 
people  of  Iowa  had  never  decided  it;  what  is  there  excep- 
tionable in  electing  judges  in  the  same  manner,  or  in  a 
manner  similar  to  that  of  electing  Senators  to  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States — by  joint  ballot  of  the  two  houses,  or 
by  the  joint  action  of  the  executive  and  Legislative  depart- 
ment of  the  government.  One  of  these  methods  for  elect- 
ing judges  is  ordinarily  adopted  in  the  States.  Who  has  or 
who  can  point  out  any  evils  from  adopting  the  same  plan  in 
Iowa?  Is  there  any  inherent  want  of  capability,  or  lack  of 
integrity  disqualifying  the  Governor,  the  Senate  and  the 
House  of  Representatives  assembled  from  every  county  in 
the  State  from  making  a  suitable  choice?  It  will  be  time 
enough  to  look  about  for  some  other  mode  of  selecting 
those  functionaries,  when  the  objectors  show  that  the  ordi- 
nary mode  is  objectionable. 

This  has  not  been  attempted  in  any  manner  by  writer  or 
speaker,  to  our  knowledge,  except  by  setting  it  down  for 
granted  that  the  Executive  and  Legislative  body  are  cor- 
rupt. Aye,  corrupt,  and  therefore  the  judge  must  be  elected 
by  the  people.  But  who  elects  the  Governor,  and  Senators 
and  Representatives?  The  people.  Will  the  people  be 
apt  to  make  a  better  choice  of  men  for  one  station  than  for 
the  other?  Is  not  purity  of  design,  integrity  of  purpose 
and  high  and  honorable  bearing  as  necessary  in  one  depart- 
ment of  government  as  in  another?     And  yet,  the  objectors 


380  Constitution  of  1846. 

insist  that  that  body  of  people  who  cannot  choose  or  who 
do  not  require  men  of  these  qualities  for  the  Legislative  and 
Executive  departments,  shall  select  men  for  the  judiciary. 
Such  is  their  argument,  where  argument  is  resorted  to  at  all. 
We  are  in  favor  of  the  old  fashioned  way  of  making 
judges,  because  no  valid  objection  has  been  raised  against 
it.  We  are  opposed  to  electing  them  by  the  people,  because 
it  will  be  a  change  from  a  known  good  way,  to  the  trial  of 
a  doubtful  experiment  in  legislation,  unless  some  necessity 
compels  the  measure.  Again,  we  say  that  if  the  people  fail 
to  elect  uncorrupt  men  to  these  two  departments,  with  what 
reason  can  it  be  expected  that  they  will  elect  good  men  for 
this?  Will  life,  liberty  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness  be  bet- 
ter secured  by  your  new  fashioned  mode,  than  by  the  old 
method  which  has  stood  the  test  of  ages? — Will  there  be  a 
more  ready  and  willing  obedience  yielded  to  the  decisions 
of  courts  of  justice,  organized  by  your  plan,  than  upon  the 
old  platform?  Show  us  these  and  we  will  vote  with  you. 
Don't  answer  by  telling  us  that  it  will  be  more  democratic. 
That  will  not  do.  Democracy  is  very  good  in  its  place, 
but  it  won't  do  to  go  to  bed  to. 

A. 

— Reprinted  from  The  Bloomington  Herald^  New  Series, 
Vol.  /.,  No.  J,  May  i,  184.6. 


ECONOMY  IN  STATE  GOVERNMENT. 

This  is  a  subject  which  will  come  before  the  Convention 
in  regulating  the  salaries  of  the  members  of  the  Legislature 
and  all  the  officers  of  State.  We  conceive  it  to  be  one  of 
deep  interest  to  the  citizens  of  Iowa.  While  we  will  go  as 
far  as  any  in  our  opposition  to  an  extravagant  expenditure 
of  the  public  money,  we  think  there  is  great  danger  in  our 
zeal  after  economy  of  falling  upon  the  opposite  extreme, 


Press  Comments  Relative  to  the  Constitution.       381 

and  illustrating  in  the  case  of  a  State  government,  the  old 
adage  of  "  penny  wise  and  pouncJ  foolish."  The  object  of 
this  people  is,  or  should  be,  to  secure  a  good  government 
well  administered. — Such  government  to  conduct  her  affairs 
wisely  and  well  should  have  in  her  service  the  best  talent 
the  State  possesses.  To  secure  the  services  of  men  calcu- 
lated to  reflect  honor  on  the  State  and  manage  her  affairs 
with  credit,  they  must  be  well  paid.  Talent  is  in  the  mar- 
ket to  be  paid  for,  and  if  private  enterprise  will  yield  a 
better  recompense  than  the  public  service,  the  State  gov- 
ernment must  have  her  affairs  directed,  her  laws  admin- 
istered, by  second  rate  men.  We  have  among  us  no  class 
who  can  be  expected  to  hold  office  for  the  honor  such 
office  confers.  It  is  only  by  adopting  a  liberal  policy,  and 
securing  to  those  in  her  employ  an  adequate  remuneration 
for  their  services,  that  the  State  can  get  good  men— and 
liberality  here  is  true  economy. — Better  for  the  interests  of 
the  State  and  citizen  is  it,  that  ample  salaries  should  be 
given  to  men  competent  to  "  render  the  state  some  ser- 
vice," than  a  cheap  government  administered  by  any  others. 
— We  speak  now  more  particularly  of  the  Executive  and 
Judiciary.  The  first  is  not  only  an  office  of  honor,  but 
also  of  great  responsibility.  Our  States  hold  toward  each 
other  the  relations  in  many  respects  of  sovereign  govern- 
ments. Questions  of  importance  are  constantly  growing 
out  of  these  relations  which  call  for  the  exercise  of  wisdom 
and  prudence  on  the  part  of  the  Executive.  Iowa  as  a 
territory  has  not  escaped  such  difficulties.  Our  question 
of  boundary  with  the  State  of  Missouri  is  still  unsettled,  a 
question  which  has  and  may  again  disturb  the  peace  of  the 
Territory.  Internal  dissensions  may  arise  requiring  great 
foresight  and  prudence  on  the  part  of  the  Governor.  But 
recently  we  have  seen  parts  of  one  of  our  eastern  States  in 
open  rebellion  —  thousands  uniting  in  endeavoring  to  set 
aside  the  laws  and  nullify  the  action  of  the  courts.     What 


382  Constitution  of  1846. 

amount  of  mischief  and  disgrace  might  not  a  weak  or  rash 
man  in  the  Executive  office  bring  upon  the  State  under 
such  circumstances.  The  case  of  Governor  Wright  of 
New  York  illustrates  our  meaning;  were  the  Governor's 
salary  in  that  State  what  it  is  proposed  to  make  it  in  Iowa, 
a  man  of  the  station  and  in  the  circumstances  of  Silas 
Wright  would  be  excluded  from  the  office.  No  matter 
how  much  he  might  regard  the  honor  of  the  position,  no 
matter  how  well  fitted  to  fill  it,  his  poverty  would  forever 
prevent  his  accepting  it.  This  false  economy  is  contrary 
to  the  whole  spirit  of  our  institutions:  it  denies  the  poor 
man  any  participation  in  the  administration  of  the  govern- 
ment, and  in  effect  creates  an  aristocracy  under  the  garb 
of  economy.  In  the  case  of  the  Judiciary,  we  think  the 
evils  resulting  from  such  miscalled  economy  still  more 
dangerous  than  in  the  case  of  the  Executive — in  the  latter 
mischief  may  arise  from  want  of  qualification  for  office — in 
the  former  it  must.  Insecurity  of  private  property,  and 
enormous  expense  to  the  State  and  citizen  must  arise  from 
incapacity  in  those  who  hold  the  offices  of  Judges.  A  large 
part  of  this  expense  grows  directly  out  of  a  want  of  con- 
fidence in  the  Judge — hence  the  number  of  cases  carried 
up  by  appeal  and  otherwise  to  the  highest  tribunal  in  the 
State.  We  have  been  informed  by  those  who  are  familiar 
with  such  matters,  that  the  number  of  cases  thus  taken  up 
to  the  higher  courts  is  almost  as  great  in  some  of  our  new 
western  States  as  in  New  York  or  Massachusetts.  We 
must  look  for  the  reason  of  this  in  the  character  of  the 
Judges  and  the  respect  had  for  their  decisions.  In  this 
country  they  are  not  always  the  best  men  or  the  most 
learned  lawyers  the  bar  can  produce.  The  salary  is  too 
small,  the  tenure  too  limited,  to  warrant  such  in  leaving 
the  bar  for  the  bench.  Less,  we  conceive,  should  be  heard 
in  Convention  of  the  price  to  be  paid  the  servants  of  the 
State,  and  more  regard  be  had  to  the  qualifications  of  those 


Press  Comments  Relative  to  the  Constitution.       383 

who  hold  office. — To  have  all  important  offices  well  filled 
we  would  have  the  State  pay  enough  to  draw  into  her 
service  the  men  best  fitted  to  fill  them — whatever  is  neces- 
sary to  secure  such  men,  the  government  should  pay — and 
this  we  believe  to  be  the  only  safe  rule  of  economy. 

— Reprinted  from  The  Bloomington  Herald,  New  Series, 
Vol.  /.,  No.  J,  May  /,  184.6. 


THE  CONVENTION. 

Correspondence  of  the  Herald. 

Iowa  City,  May  6,  1846. 
The  Convention  for  the  formation  of  a  Constitution  for 
the  future  State  of  Iowa,  was  organized  on  Monday  morn- 
ing. The  democrats  had  agreed  in  caucus  to  confer  the 
dignity  which  is  supposed  to  attach  to  the  Presidency  of 
the  Convention,  upon  Enos  Lowe,  of  Burlington.  He 
received  19  votes,  and  Stephen  B.  Shelleday,  of  Mahaska, 
9  votes.  Messrs.  Shelleday  and  Grant  conducted  Mr.  Lowe 
to  the  chair;  after  which  he  returned  his  thanks  to  the 
Convention  for  the  honor  it  had  conferred  upon  him.  Mr. 
William  Thompson,  of  Henry  county,  was  unanimously 
chosen  Secretary  and  William  A.  Skinner  Sergeant-at- 
arms. —  The  democrats  would  not  consent  to  ballot  for 
President,  lest  some  of  the  faithful  might  vote  against  Mr. 
Lowe.  But  called  the  names  of  members — requiring  them 
to  respond  with  the  name  of  the  person  for  whom  they 
would  vote  for  President.  A  novel  proceeding,  this,  sure 
enough !  However,  this  is  a  progressive  age !  It  was  sup- 
posed that  Mr.  Lowe  would  pursue  a  liberal  course;  but 
this  was  a  great  mistake.  The  first  committee  appointed 
was  one  to  examine  and  report  upon  the  credentials  of 
members,  which  was  composed  entirely  of  out-and-out 
democrats.     The  committee  upon  the  Bill  of  Rights  and 


384  Constitution  of  1846, 

Boundaries,  consisting  of  five  members,  were  all  democrats 
but  one,  Mr.  Bowie  of  Desmoines,  who  was  added  to  the 
tail  end  of  the  committee.  The  committee  on  Corporations 
consists  of  four  democrats  and  one  whig,  Mr.  Bates  is  chair- 
man, whose  ultra  notions  are  well  known.  The  committee 
on  the  Judiciary  are  all  democrats  but  one,  the  chairman 
whereof  is  a  doctor,  not  of  lazi>s,  but  of  medicine,  who  resides 
in  Clinton  county.  There  are  not  more  than  two  whigs  upon 
any  committee,  and  they  have  not  a  chairman  of  a  single 
one.  Dr.  Lowe  has  certainly  pursued  a  very  illiberal  course. 

From  present  appearances  it  cannot  be  doubted  but  that 
we  will  have  a  more  illiberal  Constitution  than  the  old  one. 
The  boundary  on  the  North  will  be  fixed  at  43  1-2  degrees. 
It  will  be  fixed  at  that  line,  because  there  has  been  an 
intimation  that  that  line  would  meet  the  views  of  Con- 
gress. The  democrats  are  determined  to  have  such  boun- 
daries as  Congress  will  approve.  They  care  not  how  much 
the  State  may  be  despoiled  of  her  fair  proportions.  The 
following  has  been  introduced  as  an  amendment  to,  and 
will  probably  become  the  second  section  of  the  Article 
upon  the  Bill  of  Rights,  viz: 

"  Government  is  instituted  for  the  protection,  security  and 
common  welfare  of  the  whole  people,  and  they,  holding  in 
themselves  the  political  power  of  the  State,  do  and  ought 
to  retain  the  inviolable  right  at  all  times  to  modify,  alter 
and  repeal,  as  well  the  Organic  as  the  Legislative  enact- 
ments, of  all  and  any  preceding  Legislative  bodies." 

What  do  you  think  of  that?  Is  not  that  radical  democ- 
racy ?  You  may  depend  upon  it,  that,  if  it  should  be 
defeated  at  present  it  will  be  reported  by  the  committee  on 
Corporations  and  will  be  adopted.  If  that  becomes  a  part 
of  the  law  of  the  land,  and  the  people  should  adopt  it,  Iowa 
will  remain  stationary  for  a  number  of  years  to  come.  We 
have  nothing  whatever  to  hope,  but  everything  to  fear  from 
the  course  indicated  by  the  proceedings  of  the  Convention 


Press  Comments  Relative  to  the  Constitution.      385 

thus  far.  Howevei",  we  have  one  consolation  left,  and  that 
is,  if  they  incorporate  in  the  Constitution  such  features  as 
the  above,  it  will  be  an  easy  matter  to  reject  it — and  rejected 
it  will  be. 

I  write  to  you  because  the  "  Standard  "  is  "  not  dead  but 
sleeping;  "  it  will  probably  awake  ere  long. 

Yours,  &c., 

Veritas. 

— Reprinted  fro7n  the  Blootnington  Herald,  New  Series, 
Vol  /.,  No.  4,  May  8,  1846. 


PROGRESSION. 

The  Capital  Reporter  of  the  29th  takes  us  to  task  for 
being  behind  the  age  in  our  views  of  legislation,  and  for 
insisting  that  members  of  the  Convention  should  pay  some 
regard  to  the  provisions  of  the  Constitutions  within  their 
reach,  and  not  rely  too  much  upon  their  own  invention. 
We  regretted  the  spirit  of  innovation  which  seems  bent 
upon  breaking  down  all  ancient  landmarks  and  treating 
with  contempt  the  opinions  of  those  who  have  gone  before 
us.  But  it  seems  we  are  behind  the  age — this  is  a  day,  we 
are  told,  of  progression,  and  it  is  idle  for  us  to  raise  our 
voice  against  the  "  spirit  of  the  age." 

We  confess  we  have  some  reverence  for  the  laws  and 
institutions  of  our  forefathers — that  we  are  guilty  of  believ- 
ing the  views  of  such  men  as  Washington,  Jay,  Hamilton 
and  Madison  upon  the  subject  of  government  to  be  more 
worthy  of  respect  than  the  opinions  of  those  great  moderns, 
Augustus  C.  Dodge,  Thomas  Dorr,  or  even  the  mass  of 
the  Convention. 

The  word  -progress  has  lately  been  adopted  as  a  Demo- 
cratic principle,  and  considering  how  recently  it  has  been 
adopted  into  the  creed,  it  has  certainly  been  carried  out 

25 


386  Constitution  of  1846. 

with  a  great  deal  of  zeal.  We  give  below,  as  we  find  it  in 
the  Reporter,  a  most  remarkable  instance  of  progression  in 
political  economy,  and  one  occurring,  too,  very  recently. 
Refering  to  the  rejection  of  the  Constitution  of  last  year, 
the  editor  consoles  himself  thus: 

'•  Since  the  drafting  of  that  instrument,  great  advancement 
has  been  made  in  the  science  of  political  economy,  and 
consequently  the  civil  code  about  to  be  framed,  will  doubt- 
less be  based  upon  much  broader  and  more  comprehensive 
democratic  principles  than  was  the  former  one.  Do  our 
opponents  flatter  themselves  that  they  can  frighten  demo- 
crats from  their  known  duty  to  themselves  and  posterity  r 
Should  circumstances  conspire  again  to  favor  their  designs, 
and  enable  the  minority  to  triumph  in  thwarting  the 
people's  efforts  to  throw  off  their  yoke  of  Territorial  bond- 
age, let  them  rest  assured  that  each  successive  constitution 
which  shall  be  framed,  will  be  more  essentially  democratic 
than  its  predecessor."  Is  it  possible  there  has  been  such 
great  advancement  made  in  the  science  of  government  this 
season  as  is  here  represented  ?  We  had  not  heard  of  it  in 
Bloomington,  but  this  comes  of  living  in  an  out-of-the-way 
place;  we  are  glad  however  that  the  Constitution  about  to 
be  framed  will  have  the  benefit  of  the  latest  improvements 
in  political  economy.  We  would  be  obliged  to  our  neigh- 
bor at  the  City  if  he  would  inform  us  when,  and  by  whom, 
these  discoveries  were  made.  Would  it  not  be  well  to 
adjourn  the  Convention  for  a  time  that  we  may  have  in- 
corporated in  our  Constitution  the  very  latest  progres- 
sions? But  it  is  to  the  closing  paragraph  we  would  call 
the  attention  of  the  whig  party.  We  are  warned  if  we  re- 
ject the  Constitution  about  to  come  forth,  that  each  suc- 
cessive instrument  will  be  more  essentially  democratic  than 
its  predecessor. — Here  is  food  for  serious  reflection.  We 
are  placed  in  an  unpleasant  situation.  But  of  two  evils  we 
choose  the  most  distant,  and  prefer  defeating,  if  possible, 


Press  Comments  Relative  to  the  Constitution.       387 

a  Constitution  fraught  with  evil  to  our  country,  and  are 
willing  to  submit  to  any  infliction  which  may  be  put  upon 
us  in  the  future  for  our  contumacy.  We  would  not  how- 
ever be  thought  to  oppose  a  State  government — we  are  in 
favor  of  it.  Let  it  be  a  Constitution  for  the  people,  and 
not  solely  for  the  party,  and  we  will  support  it. 

— Reprinted  from  The  Bloomington  Herald^  New  Series, 
Vol  /.,  No.  5,  May  15,  184.6. 

THE  CONVENTION  AND  THE  CONSTITUTION. 

The  Convention  for  the  formation  of  a  Constitution  for 
the  State  of  Iowa,  adjourned  on  Tuesday  of  this  week. 
We  have  received  a  copy  of  the  Constitution,  and  shall 
endeavor  to  lay  it  before  our  readers  next  week.  We  have 
not  yet  had  time  to  examine  critically  its  provisions.  A 
cursory  glance  at  its  contents  has  satisfied  us  that  it  is  not 
such  a  Constitution  as  is  suited  to  the  wants  of  Iowa.  It  is 
strictly  a  ^arty  Constitution,  full  of  ultraism  and  illiberality 
— such  an  one  as,  in  our  opinion,  is  despotic  in  theory,  and 
equally  so  in  practice.  The  locofocos,  while  professing 
love  for  the  people,  have  bound  them  hand  and  foot. 
They  have,  Delilah  like,  betrayed  them  and  shorn  them  of 
their  strength.  They  have  rendered  their  voice  impotent. 
Yet  this  is  democracy !  *****  Whilst  it  is 
democratic  that,  in  a  republican  form  of  government,  the 
will  of  the  majority  should  be  the  supreme  law  of  the  land, 
it  is  democratic  to  say  that,  if  three-fourths  or  nine-tenths 
of  the  people  should  want  anything  but  hard  money,  they 
shall  not  have  it!  Whilst  it  is  democratic  to  say  that  the 
representatives  of  the  people  are  their  servants,  it  is  demo- 
cratic for  those  servants  to  say  to  the  people,  "  So  far  shalt 
thou  come,  but  no  farther."  Whilst  it  is  democratic  to  say 
that  "  All  power  is  inherent  in  the  people,"  it  is  equally 
democratic  to  add  to  that,  by  way  of  qualification,  '■'  except 


388  Constitution  of  184.6. 

such  powers  as  we  deem  them  incapable  of-exercising  with 
discretion."  We  might  proceed  in  enumerating  the  incon- 
sistencies of  the  locofocos,  but  we  forbear  at  present,  hoping 
to  be  able  to  recur  to  this  subject  at  another  time. 

The  Constitution  prohibits  the  incorporation  of  all  private 
companies,  and  at  the  same  time  prohibits  the  State  from 
becoming  a  stockholder  in  any  company,  public  or  private 
— thereby  rendering  it  certain  that  we  can  never  have  in- 
ternal improvements  of  any  kind.  It  is  true  that  it  is  pro- 
vided that  the  General  Assembly  shall  pass  a  general  law, 
under  which  companies  may  be  organized — being  liable  to 
such  extent,  as  stockholders,  as  may  be  prescribed  by  law; 
but  this  we  regard  as  little  better  than  an  entire  prohibition. 
It  is,  at  best,  but  an  experiment,  and  we  think  it  will  be 
found  impracticable.  Companies  will  not  organize  and 
expend  money  in  carrying  out  a  project  unless  they  can 
have  some  assurance  that  others  will  not  be  permitted  to 
interfere  with  them  in  such  a  way  as  to  render  their  exer- 
tions fruitless.  We  think  the  majority  in  the  Convention 
erred  by  agreeing  to  fix  our  northern  boundary  at  43  1-2 
degrees  north  latitude.  The  region  of  country  above  that 
line,  and  which  was  included  in  the  boundaries  prescribed 
by  the  first  Convention,  is  rich  in  mineral  productions,  and 
we  doubt  not  would  have  been  a  source  of  vast  wealth  to 
the  State.  But  it  seems  that  the  democracy  who  some- 
times pretend  to  be  so  tenacious  of  the  people's  rights,  were 
willing  to  make  any  and  all  sacrifices  in  order  to  meet  the 
approbation  of  the  "  powers  that  be." 

What  course  then,  it  may  be  asked,  would  it  be  proper 
to  pursue  in  the  coming  canvass  for  and  against  the  Consti- 
tution? We  think  it  is  the  imperative  duty  of  every  man 
who  holds  that  the  majority  have  a  right  to  rule,  to  vote 
against  the  adoption  of  a  Constitution  which  will  cripple 
the  energies  of  the  State,  and  which  must  inevitably  have 
a  tendency  to  keep  Iowa  behind  all  her  neighbors  in  works 


Press  Comments  Relative  to  the  Constitution.       389 

of  internal  improvements — and  in  everything  that  would 
contribute  to  the  development  of  her  resources,  and  retard 
her  advancement  to  that  station  which  nature  has  designed 
her  to  occupy  among  the  States  of  the  Union. 

— Refrinted from  the  Bloomington  Herald,  New  Series^ 
Vol.  /.,  No.  6,  May  22,  1846. 


THE  NEW  CONSTITUTION. 

In  our  last  we  gave  briefly  our  opinion  of  this  instrument 
— pointed  out  the  most  manifest  objections  to  it  and  the 
reasons  which  would  influence  us  in  opposing  it.  We  had 
hoped  that  the  Convention  would  adopt  a  Constitution 
which  would  be  acceptable  to  the  great  mass  of  our  citi- 
zens, irrespective  of  party,  as  it  was  certainly  in  their  power 
to  have  done.  We  confess  we  had  looked  for  better  things 
of  the  members  of  this  body  and  have  been  disappointed. 
They  have  here  offered  to  this  people  a  Constitution  em- 
bracing in  its  provisions  the  more  prominent  articles  of 
democratic  faith,  and  if  it  is  rejected  the  responsibility  must 
rest  with  those  who  have  made  it  what  it  is.  Would  that 
the  leaders  of  that  body  could  have  for  the  time,  cast  off 
the  character  of  partizans  and  have  acted  the  part  of  citi- 
zens sent  into  Convention  to  frame  a  government  for  our 
future  State.  Had  such  been  the  feeling  which  animated 
them,  this  instrument  with  its  present  odious  party  features 
would  never  have  been  presented;  but  in  its  stead  might 
have  been  seen  a  good  old  fashioned  Constitution,  fitted  to 
answer  every  purpose  of  good  government,  free  from  all 
party  taint,  and  one  which  would  have  been  accepted 
almost  by  acclamation.  But  unfortunately  there  are  those 
in  every  country  who  make  politics  a  trade;  by  this  craft 
they  expect  to  gain  a  living;  upon  the  prosperity  of  a  party, 
not  of  the  country  at  large,  they  found  their  hopes,  and 
though  the  interests  of  a  future  State  should  be  blighted,  if 


390  Constitution  of  184.6. 

the  party  is  made  safe  they  will  receive  their  reward.  We 
cannot  doubt  there  were  such  men  in  the  late  Convention, 
the  party  leaders  in  Iowa,  who  look  to  the  State  offices  and 
seats  in  Congress  to  be  filled  and  regard  it  as  most  impor- 
tant they  should  be  found  faithful  to  the  democracy  from 
the  beginning. 

It  is  upon  account  of  the  character  such  men  have 
stamped  upon  this  instrument  that  we  oppose  it. — We  ob- 
ject to  it  that  it  is  not  confined  to  its  legitimate  purpose — 
defining  the  boundaries  of  the  State — setting  out  a  Bill  of 
Rights — instituting  offices — and  putting  the  machinery  of 
government  in  motion — but  it  goes  further  and  seeks  to 
fasten  upon  this  people  the  tenets  of  a  party. 

We  object  to  this  Constitution  that  it  has  been  once 
offered  and  rejected,  and  by  proposing  it  again  it  is  attempt- 
ing to  dictate  to  this  people  what  sort  of  a  government  shall 
be  imposed  upon  them.  We  know  that  local  interests  con- 
tributed somewhat  to  the  defeat  of  the  former  Constitution, 
but  the  opposition  to  it  was  confined  to  no  section  of  the 
Territory — but  was  general;  the  reason  for  its  rejection  is 
not  to  be  found  then  in  dissatisfaction  with  the  boundaries 
as  prescribed  by  that  instrument,  but  in  the  illiberal  and 
party  provisions  found  there,  and  in  the  sense  of  justice 
which  characterises  the  people  whether  whigs  or  demo- 
crats. They  ask  for  Iowa  such  a  Constitution  as  they  have 
been  accustomed  to  in  the  older  States  of  the  Union. 

This  Constitution  in  all  its  obnoxious  features  is  similar 
to  its  predecessor — in  effect  the  same.  By  presenting  it 
again  to  the  people  an  issue  is  made  between  the  citizens 
and  these  party  leaders;  it  remains  to  be  seen  which  must 
yield  in  the  contest,  and  whether  we  have  any  real  inde- 
pendence or  must  tamely  submit  to  this  dictation.  But  if 
for  the  first  time  now  offered  its  own  character  is  enough 
to  condemn  it. 

The  object  of  a  Constitution  we  conceive  to  be,  to  set 


Press  Comments  Relative  to  the  Constitution.       391 

the  wheels  of  government  in  motion  and  at  the  same  time 
to  secure  from  the  reach  of  ordinary  hasty  legislation,  cer- 
tain inalienable  rights  of  the  citizen  which  are  of  too  high  a 
nature  to  be  exposed  to  the  varying  opinions  of  the  day. 
Any  such  restraint  upon  the  people,  through  the  legislature, 
is  a  restriction  upon  the  right  of  the  majority  to  pass  laws 
which  shall  govern  the  minority,  and  when  not  carried  too 
far,  or  perverted  to  accomplish  unholy  purposes — is  wise. 

But  however  salutary  the  restraint  has  been  found  to  be, 
it  is  still  an  infringement  upon  one  of  the  first  principles  of  a 
republican  government,  and  should  be  confined  to  narrow 
bounds.  What  do  we  see  here,  and  how  have  these  de- 
fenders of  the  rights  of  the  people,  these  worshippers  of  the 
dear  people,  whose  love  passes  the  love  of  woman — how  have 
they  regarded  the  rights  of  the  majority  in  forbidding  them 
to  pass  at  any  time  such  laws  as  they  may  see  fit?  They 
are  forbidden  to  touch  certain  subjects,  and  those  the  ordi- 
nary subjects  of  legislation.  They  have  treasured  up 
among  provisions  securing  the  most  sacred  rights  of  the 
subject,  the  dogmas  of  their  party.  Rights  we  have  in- 
herited from  those  who  secured  our  independence  and 
which  are  dear  to  every  American,  are  here  classed  with 
the  most  ultra  democratic  abstractions. 

We  object  to  this  Constitution  because  it  is  essentially 
democratic  and  not  intended  for  the  citizens  irrespective  of 
party — because  it  has  once  been  rejected  by  the  people. 
For  these  reasons,  and  for  its  tendency  to  degrade  the 
Judiciary,  depress  the  enterprise  of  the  people,  and  restrict 
them  in  their  highest  prerogatives,  that  of  making  laws,  we 
feel  that  it  becomes  every  liberal  minded  man  whether 
whig  or  democrat  to  cast  his  vote  against  it.  We  shall  at 
another  time  present  in  detail  our  objections  to  those  partic- 
ular provisions  which  we  consider  most  odious  and  illiberal. 

— Reprinted  from  The  Bloomington  Herald,  New  Series, 
Vol,  /.,  No.  7,  May  2^,  1846. 


392  Constitution  of  1846. 

ElyECTlVE  JUDICIARY. 

In  classifying  our  objections  to  the  Constitution  now 
offered,  we  rank  this  as  first:  that  the  District  Judges  are  to 
be  elected  every  five  years  by  the  people,  and  the  Supreme 
Judges  every  six  years  by  joint  ballot  of  the  tw^o  houses  of 
the  Legislature. — Having  no  journal  of  the  debates  in  the 
late  Convention,  it  is  impossible  to  tell  upon  w^hat  grounds 
the  present  mode  of  appointing  the  District  and  Supreme 
Court  Judges  was  condemned,  and  a  popular  election  pre- 
ferred. We  suppose  there  must  have  been  some  weighty 
reasons  for  making  such  a  change,  and  we  trust  the  demo- 
cratic press  of  the  Territory  will  inform  the  people  why  it 
is  that  the  policy  of  the  General  Government,  and  of  the 
States  at  large,  was  discarded  by  our  law  makers  in  favor 
of  an  untried  experiment.  Can  it  be  shown  that  the 
present  system  in  the  case  of  the  Federal  and  State  gov- 
ernments has  failed  to  accomplish  its  purpose,  and  is 
defective  ?  or  is  it  pretended  that  any  charges  have  been 
made  against  the  Judiciary  as  it  now  exists  ?  There 
should  be  a  reason  for  a  change  such  as  this,  and  the  peo- 
ple have  a  right  to  ask  what  advantages  may  we  expect 
from  a  popular  election.  Have  not  our  Judges  throughout 
the  country  proved  themselves  both  capable  and  honest  ? 
Have  not  the  laws  been  faithfully  and  impartially  adminis- 
tered ?  And  has  not  the  Judiciary  of  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment and  the  several  States  been  at  all  times  the  most  pure 
and  dignified  branch  of  the  government  ?  All  admit  that 
it  is  so — and  why,  we  ask,  is  this  system  under  which  we 
have  grown  up,  and  which  has  the  full  confidence  of  the 
people,  to  be  now  changed  ?  It  is  not  sufficiently  demo- 
cratic— and  this  in  our  day  and  generation  is  objection 
enough.  It  is  nothing  that  the  courts  as  constituted  have 
administered  justice  impartially  between  man  and  man — it 
is  nothing  that  they  have  been  looked  up  to  by  the  people 


Press  Comments  Relative  to  the  Constitution.       393 

with  confidence  and  respect,  and  their  decisions  quietly 
acquiesced  in;  the  character  of  the  Bench  cannot  shield  it 
against  innovation — it  must  be  modernised  to  suit  the  pro- 
gress of  the  age.  The  Judiciary  at  this  day  is  the  popular 
branch  of  the  government — the  people  cling  round  it  as 
the  palladium  of  their  rights,  and  feel  a  respect  for  this 
office  which  they  feel  for  none  other.  Would  that  this 
feeling  could  be  continued,  and  the  Bench  be  preserved 
from  a  popular  election  and  party  feeling.  We  believe  the 
Judiciary  of  the  General  Government  forms  the  best  model 
for  our  institution;  of  the  Federal  Courts  an  American  may 
feel  proud — by  them  the  constitutional  laws  of  the  United 
States  have  been  administered  with  wisdom  and  firmness — 
in  times  of  the  greatest  excitement,  when  State  was  arrayed 
against  State,  the  confidence  in  the  virtue  and  wisdom  of 
the  Judges  has  preserved  the  Union.  Contemplate  such 
men  in  their  proud  position,  dependent  upon  no  party — 
answerable  to  no  caucus  or  clique — but  wisely  and  fear- 
lessly doing  their  duty;  and  then  turn  to  view  the  Judiciary 
a  party  would  create.  To  be  a  Judge  under  the  proposed 
Constitution,  a  man  must  become  a  candidate — he  must 
enter  actively  upon  a  political  canvass — must  resort  to  all 
the  management  and  intrigue  of  such  a  contest.  He  who 
desires  an  election  before  the  people  must  make  use  of 
party  machinery  to  effect  his  purpose.  Caucuses  must  sit 
in  private — Conventions  be  called,  and  pledges  tendered  to 
candidates  to  sign — ( as  was  done  but  a  few  weeks  since  by 
the  democracy  of  Muscatine  to  their  candidates  for  Conven- 
tion)— and  the  would  be  Judge  must  walk  up  and  give 
his  assent  to  the  articles  of  party  faith. — "Do  you  believe," 
says  the  chairman  of  such  a  Convention,  to  the  candidate, 
"that  the  decrees  of  the  Baltimore  Convention  form  the 
only  true  rule  of  democratic  faith  and  practice  ?"  "  I  do." 
"  Do  you  believe  that  a  charter  granted  by  a  Legislature 
is  a  contract  which  cannot  be  violated  by  the  will  of  either 


394  Constitution  of  184.6. 

party.'*"  &c.,  &c.  If  the  candidate  is  found  to  be  sound  in 
the  faith,  he  is  sent  out  to  the  people  with  the  approbation 
of  the  caucus — and  such  is  the  man  who  is  to  assume  the 
ermine  of  Justice,  and  administer  the  laws  without  fear 
or  favor.  We  will  suppose  such  an  one  going  upon  the 
Bench  in  the  lower  District  of  the  Territory.  The  disputed 
titles  in  the  Half  Breed  Tract  come  before  him  for  adjudi- 
cation; he  holds  his  place  by  popular  favor — at  the  end  of 
five  years  he  is  to  be  a  candidate  again.  Can  the  decision 
of  such  a  man  so  situated  give  satisfaction  or  inspire  confi- 
dence ?  If  he  do  not  allow  popular  feeling  to  influence 
him,  he  cannot  repress  suspicion.  We  would  not  willingly 
expose  a  Judge  to  such  a  temptation  to  do  wrong — the 
man's  bread  depends  upon  his  securing  the  favor  of  the 
electors.  The  term  of  five  years  is  too  short  to  learn  to  be 
a  Judge,  and  hardly  long  enough  to  prepare  the  way  for  a 
re-election.  And  how  is  it  with  the  Supreme  Court  Judges: 
their  election  is  before  the  Legislature,  and  this  is  the 
scene  of  their  electioneering. — We  think  it  preferable  to  a 
popular  election,  but  the  same  objections  apply.  Instead 
of  mounting  the  stump,  the  candidate  here  must  resort  to 
the  Capitol  and  work  out  his  election  there.  The  means 
to  be  used  are  the  same — he  is  the  servant  of  a  party  and 
must  do  their  bidding.  What  so  degrading  to  an  honorable 
man  as  to  be  obliged  to  cringe  and  stoop  to  those  who 
hold  the  office  in  their  gift — to  crawl  up  to  an  office  which 
he  feels  he  has  disgraced.  And  what  is  he  when  fairly  in 
his  seat — an  honorable,  high-minded,  just  Judge,  or  a 
fledged  f  arty  hack  f  Let  those  answer  who  would  degrade 
an  honorable  office. 

We  know  that  the  democracy  feel  somewhat  confident  of 
being  able  to  inffict  this  system  upon  us.  They  say  we  are 
not  the  friends  of  the  people,  and  would  deny  them  the 
possession  of  power,  &c. — that  they  look  to  them  as  the 
fountain  of  all  authority,  and  that  the  Judiciary  should  be 


Press  Comments  Relative  to  the  Constitution.       395 

placed  in  their  hands.  There  are  cases  where  we  do 
not  think  an  intelligent  people  would  permit  a  popular 
election.  We  would  not  have  an  army  elect  their  General, 
or  the  crew  of  a  man-of-war  their  Commander,  because  it 
would  destroy  all  subordination;  but  we  are  in  favor  of  ex- 
tending popular  elections,  but  in  another  direction.  We 
ask  those  dear  friends  of  the  people  to  assist  us  in  making 
Postmasters  throughout  the  land  elective  by  the  voters  of 
their  districts;  here  we  think  a  change  of  some  importance 
might  be  made  with  safety,  and  the  immense  patronage  of 
the  department  taken  awa,y.  What  does  our  friend  of  the 
Reporter  say  to  this  ?  But  to  the  election  of  the  Judges 
we  are  opposed — and  consider  such  a  provision  sufficient 
to  defeat  the  Constitution  were  there  no  other  objection 
to  it. 

— Re-printed  from  The  Bloomington  Herald,  New  Series^ 
Vol.  /.,  No.  S.June  5.  1846. 

PARTY  UNANIMITY. 

The  Capital  Reporter  of  the  loth  ult.,  under  the  head  of 
"  Doctors  will  Differ,"  contrasts  the  views  taken  by  the 
Hawkeye  and  ourself  of  the  proposed  Constitution,  and 
points  out  a  difference  of  opinion  which  exists  between  us 
as  to  its  character  when  compared  with  the  Constitution  of 
last  year.  The  editor  exults  over  this,  and  refers  with 
pride  to  the  unanimity  which  exists  among  the  democracy, 
and  from  it  argues  the  success  of  his  party.  That  this  har- 
mony among  the  dominant  party  is  the  true  source  of  their 
power  we  cannot  doubt — nor  are  we  ignorant  of  the  fact 
that  difference  of  opinion  has  been  the  stumbling  block  in 
the  way  of  the  whigs.  That  party  discipline  is  defective 
which  admit  of  any  dissension  between  leaders  and  follow- 
ers— and  the  independence  of  the  whig  party,  and  their 
aversion    to  all  rule  in  matters  of  opinion,  has  been  fre- 


39<5  Constitution  of  1846. 

quently  the  cause  of  their  defeat.  That  party  is  not 
formed  of  the  right  material,  to  be  drilled  and  marshalled 
by  aspiring  leaders,  which  admits  of  any  such  independence 
— with  the  whigs  the  individual  is  never  sufficiently  merged 
into  the  partisan  to  make  an  efficient,  ready  tool;  and  we 
glory  in  a  defeat  which  grows  out  of  such  independence. — 
Men's  views  are  different,  their  modes  of  reasoning  various, 
and  any  constant  unanimity  must  grow  out  of  the  over- 
bearing dictation  of  the  few,  or  the  subserviency  of  the  mass. 

Let  us  see  how  it  is  that  our  opponents  can  be  always 
brought  to  act  together,  and  what  influence  is  used  to  put 
down  opposition  to  the  views  of  the  leaders.  The  columns 
of  the  Reporter  expose  the  discipline  which  it  is  found 
necessary  occasionally  to  resort  to  in  governing  the  rank 
and  file  of  the  party.  In  the  number  to  which  we  have 
referred  the  editor  calls  a  portion  of  the  party  to  account 
for  lukewarmness  and  holding  back,  when  the  word  is — 
forward.  There  is,  it  seems,  a  little  local  opposition  to  the 
Constitution  which  the  leaders  at  the  City  feel  themselves 
called  upon  to  rebuke.  Party  discipline  must  be  kept  up — 
and  the  editor  of  the  Reporter  sets  to  work  to  whip  in  the 
refractory  spirits  at  the  North.     Hear  him: 

"  Therefore,"  after  reciting  their  short-comings,  "  having 
occupied  our  present  position  long  enough  to  become 
familiar  with  the  ground,  and  having,  moreover,  fortified 
ourself  against  the  malice  of  faithless  and  designing  men, 
we  will  in  future,  whenever  occasion  requires,  unhesitat- 
ingly denounce  the  corrupt  practice  here  alluded  to,  [to-wit, 
holding  back]  and  will  not  fail  to  hold  up  those  who  are 
guilty  of  resorting  to  them,  denuded  of  their  specious 
covering,  to  the  scorn  and  indignation  of  that  public  whose 
confidence  they  so  flagrantly  abuse." 

Whether  in  this  instance  the  power  of  the  organ  will 
prove  sufficient  to  hush  all  opposition  remains  to  be  seen; 
it  would  be  a  novelty  indeed  to  see  this  assumed  authority 


Press  Comments  Relative  to  the  Constitution.       397 

spurned  and  the  threats  of  party  leaders  disregarded.  The 
editor  tells  us  he  has  been  long  enough  in  his  seat  to 
understand  these  things,  and  that  whenever  an  occasion 
calls  for  it  he  will  apply  the  lash.  The  Miners'  Express, 
it  seems,  is  somewhat  out  of  order,  and  towards  that  paper 
the  Reporter  turns  as  towards  an  erring  brother — he 
would  wittingly  overlook  his  wanderings,  and  yet  his  duty 
as  party  censor  must  be  performed.  After  a  most  impres- 
sive warning  in  his  paper  of  the  3d  ult.,  the  editor  leaves 
the  Express  with  this  remark: 

"  The  generous  democracy  of  Iowa  have  an  unquestion- 
able right  to  expect  from  the  Express  a  zealous  and  undi 
vided  support  of  the  great  principles  now  at  issue,  and 
being  unwilling  to  interpose  any  obstacle  to  their  interests, 
we  refrain  from  further  remarks  at  present." 

In  a  subsequent  number  we  are  afforded  an  opportunity 
of  observing  the  effect  which  the  admonition  had  upon  the 
party  under  censure.  The  editor  referring  to  the  subject 
says: 

"  We  would  remark  by  the  way,  that  the  Express  has 
started  out  upon  the  right  track  in  the  campaign  which  is 
at  hand;  whether  it  will  continue  upon  the  straight  for- 
ward democratic  course,  remains  to  be  seen.  We  are 
bound,  at  all  events,  to  give  the  devil  his  due." 

We  trust  the  editor  of  the  Express  will  not  by  continued 
contumacy  tempt  a  party  excommunication,  but  will  look 
well  to  his  ways  and  congratulate  himself  with  being  still  a 
democrat,  without  aspiring  to  be  considered  one  of  the 
unterrified. 

It  is  by  preaching  democracy  and  practicing  the  most 
intolerant  dictation,  that  the  democratic  party  is  cajoled 
and  caressed,  and  at  the  same  time  made  to  obey. 

— Refrintedjrorn  The  Blooinington  Herald^  Neiv  Series, 
Vol.  /.,  No.  II,  June  26,  184.6. 


39B  Constitution  of  1846. 

INTERNAL  IMPROVEMENTS. 

It  is  curious  to  observe  the  history  of  the  opposition 
which  the  democracy  display  towards  projects  of  internal 
improvements.  There  has  been  for  years  a  party  in  Con- 
gress connected  with  the  Administration  who  term  them- 
selves strict  constructionists,  these  profess  to  find  in  the 
constitution  of  the  United  States  no  power  given  to  Con- 
gress to  carry  on  works  of  this  nature,  they  have  uniformly 
opposed  the  granting  of  the  public  money  for  such  pur- 
poses. Many  of  them  not  doubting  the  expediency  of  the 
General  Government  prosecuting  such  works  if  the  Consti- 
tution permitted  it.  These  men  are  leaders  of  the  party — 
their  views  have  become  the  views  of  the  party,  and  the 
democracy  for  the  sake  of  consistency  find  themselves 
opposed  not  only  to  the  right  of  the  United  States,  for  the 
reason  given,  but  also  to  the  right  of  any  State  to  encourage 
and  promote  such  undertakings  in  its  constitution.  This  is 
progression  with  a  vengeance. 

Upon  this  view  have  they  framed  for  Iowa  the  constitution 
now  presented,  and  are  throwing  in  the  way  of  the  State 
those  very  difficulties  which  their  leaders  regretted  in  the 
case  of  the  Federal  Government.  For  the  sake  of  carry- 
ing out  theories  the  substantial  interests  of  the  State  are  to 
be  prostrated. — And  fearful  lest  the  people  should  undo 
their  work  these  lawmakers  have  not  been  content  with 
doing  nothing  to  advance  the  prosperity  of  the  country, 
but  have  forbidden  the  citizens  doing  as  their  interests  may 
prompt  in  the  future,  lest  they  should  by  their  action  de- 
stroy the  symmetry  of  a  model  State  government. 

Other  States  may  go  on  in  a  career  of  improvement,  but 
Iowa  is  to  be  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  experimenters. 
Where  natural  advantages  exist  they  may  not  be  improved 
— where  they  do  not  exist  we  are  forbidden  to  supply  their 


Press  Comments  Relative  to  the  Constitution.       399 

place.  If  there  were  no  other  objection  to  this  constitution 
it  would  be  enough  to  condemn  it  in  our  eyes  that  it  does 
not  encourage  in  our  new  State  works  of  internal  improve- 
ments— but  when  it  goes  further  and  seeks  to  suppress  any 
such  enterprise,  we  cannot  conceive  it  to  be  such  a  consti- 
tution as  will  promote  the  best  interests  of  this  people. 

— Reprinted  from  The  Bloomington  Herald,  JVezu  Series, 
Vol.  /.,  A'^o.  I  J,  July  10,  184.6. 

THE  ELECTION. 
********** 

Another  question  of  vital  importance  is  also  to  be 
decided  at  the  coming  election.  That  question  is,  whether 
we  shall  adopt  the  present  constitution,  and  by  adopting  it, 
say,  by  our  votes,  that  the  Seat  of  Government  shall  be 
removed  to  the  Desmoines  river.  This  is  no  imaginary 
thing.  The  fact  has  been  shadowed  forth  by  the  head  and 
front — middle  and  rear — beginning  and  ending  of  the  loco- 
foco  party,  in  a  speech  delivered  in  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives of  the  United  States,  June  8th.  If  there  be  any 
who  are  not  interested  in  retaining  the  Seat  of  Government 
at  Iowa  City,  we  suppose  they  will  vote  for  the  constitu- 
tion. This  results  from  the  mutilation  of  our  boundaries, 
and  from  the  shameful  surrender  of  the  rights  of  the  people 
by  the  majority  in  the  last  convention.  We  wish  the 
people  to  think  upon  this  matter,  and,  after  thinking,  to  act. 

— Reprinted  from  The  Bloomington  Herald,  New  Series, 
Vol.  I.,  No.  i4,Jidy  17,  1846. 

THE  CONSTITUTION. 

For  The  Herald. 

Mr.  Editor: — The  Constitution  by  which  to  organize 
the  State  of  Iowa — a  fundamental  law  for  one  of  the 
sovereign  States  of  this  enhghtened  republic,  is  again  before 


400  Constitution  of  i8/f.6. 

us  for  our  acceptance  or  rejection.  Let  us  duly  appreciate 
and  be  grateful  for  this  high  privilege — the  freedom  of  the 
ballot-box — so  dearly  bought,  and  so  highly  valued  by  our 
good  old  ancestors.  They  transmitted  this  important  trust 
to  us,  and  we  ought  to  be  faithful  to  it,  and  let  no  secondary 
objects  interfere  with  our  candid  judgments  and  best 
motives  in  the  discharge  of  this  duty  of  self  government. 

The  public  press  and  the  people  throughout  the  Terri- 
tory, are,  as  a  general  thing,  divided  on  this  question;  the 
democrats  supporting  the  Constitution  and  the  whigs 
opposing  it.  Now,  Mr.  Editor,  I  suppose  you  will  not 
object  to  a  few  words  from  a  democrat  in  opposition  to  the 
adoption  of  this  Constitution. 

My  first  objection  is  that  we  do  not  want  yet  to  assume 
a  State  Government.  It  is  true  we  should  have  two  Sen- 
ators in  Congress,  and  be  entitled  to  3  or  4  votes  among 
nearly  300  for  President.  I  cannot  consider  these  priv- 
ileges to  be  worth  more  than  half  the  amount  of  money,  or 
more  than  half  as  much  as  the  privilege  we  annually  receive 
from  the  Government  Treasury.  But  it  is  argued  we  ought 
to  have  patriotism  enough  to  support  our  own  State  Gov- 
ernment; and  yet  the  acts  of  our  Legislators  are  approved 
of  when  they  vote  to  apply  all  the  appropriations,  without 
the  least  regard  to  usefulness,  we  possibly  can  get  from  the 
Government  Treasury,  either  by  fair  means  or  foul  strata- 
gem. We  repudiate  the  pretended  patriotism  of  all  such 
men. 

But  I  object  to  the  Constitution  itself  because  of  some  of 
the  very  extraordinary  things  therein  to  be  found;  if  I  can 
be  permitted  to  speak  out  with  perfect  freedom,  I  should  say 
I  believe  that  when  it  is  tried  it  will  be  found  that  there  are 
several  features  in  it  which  are  not  improvements  on  the 
Constitutions  of  the  older  States.  But  it  may  be  thought 
that  I  am  not  for  progress  and  improvement.  I  am  for 
progress  and  improvement,  but  when   we   change   such 


Press  Comments  Relative  to  the  Constitution.       401 

fundamental  principles  as  are  to  be  laid  down  in  a  Consti- 
tution, let  us  be  careful  and  take  "  a  second  sober  thought" 
and  be  sure  they  are  improvements.  It  is  true  there  are 
objectionable  things  in  the  laws  of  some  of  the  older  States; 
but  let  us  take  our  National  Constitution,  which  is  demo- 
cratic enough  for  me,  also  the  States  of  New  York,  Penn- 
sylvania and  others  and  see  wherein  our  Constitution  differs 
from  them.  In  the  laws  of  the  General  Government,  and 
in  the  laws  of  the  several  older  States,  there  is  much 
wisdom  and  experience,  and  prosperity  unparalleled.  Let 
us  turn  our  thoughts  homeward  for  a  moment  and  see  what 
great  improvements  we  may  expect  in  the  way  of  Consti- 
tution making.  I  would  not  question  the  ability  of  the 
people  of  Iowa  to  form  a  suitable  Constitution,  but  when  I 
see  such  a  wide  deviation  from  the  laws  of  the  older  States, 
as  in  the  Judiciary,  Internal  Improvements,  Incorporations, 
&c.,  I  have  a  right  to  doubt  the  expediency  of  it;  and  with 
the  purest  motives  in  the  world,  I  would  advise  every  dem- 
ocrat and  every  whig,  to  exercise  the  right  of  freemen  in 
voting  upon  this  Constitution. 

Truly, 

Not  a  Candidate. 

— Reprinted  from  The  Bloomington  Herald,  New  Series^ 
Vol.  /.,  JVo.  16,  July  J  I,  1846. 


APPENDIX  A. 

DATA  RELATIVE  TO  THE  MEMBERS  OF  THE 
CONVENTION   OF  1844. 


Data  Relative  to  the  Members  of  the  Convention.     405 

J3     >>   C 

.5    "5    2  H    soooooooooooooooooo 

^   U    g  >  Do  Q  >  ^3^M^  >  ^  Q  W  G  >        JS  --^ 

*"  "S  IS  s 

^  m  a  "^      8  :s  'E  :s  fc      :s  §      ^  §  s  s  ^  |  'i  g  | 


tt 


(U 


o  O    <u 


u 


4_,     p4 


O.       CO  •         O 


a;    V 


O    ■<->     cS     cJ 

CO 


^  t^  WJ  ^ 


j!!lililiilil|itiliilll 


4o6  Convention  of  1844. 


M    5^^  _ooooooooooooooooooooooooo 

jM    **  »t3  'u  ns  'w  'v  'O  'w  ^3  'w  n3  'o  'O  Ts  *tc3  'O  '^  'C  'O  *t3  n3  '^  n3  'O  *t3  'O  'O 

S       rt  _     O  «  to  05 

S^^nJio       2  «■&      S.2       0.9  «.Sa^ 

aflS"J3=       E  sn       iS       -So       nsoTsg       a 


^  I   ^        ^        ^  ^ 

•9  «    rt         «tf         ea  «a 

S^,2§Si^5iPF2SJJPS,2^J^^.2^-.HP2i^r2.2 


S  t3    -    -    -.    ^ 


g  -«  n.  ^  I   g  ^   g  ^  I   g  I   g   .   a 


IS    tOTj-eovo   t^ONt>»oo   i-.nO   '*•«-'   onnco   ^o   t^weovo    ct>\o   roro«oo 

•< 


S  45  2 

g  » .s  1 .2  g  .s  g  •§  o  s  .2  o  s  g  s  g  5  s  i  §  s  5 .2  -gi  g  .2  a 

5z;o>opio^S52;^;o:z;WaM>:z;;z;(«S;5;2;o>AJoM 


sz; 


Data  Relative  to  the  Members  of  the  Convention.     407 


5*OOOOOOQoOOOOOOOOOoOOOOOOO 

j3  'O  "^  '^  '^  '^  '^  ''^  'O  T^  '^  'C  "^  'O  '^  '^  '^  '^  'O  '^  '^  '^  '^  '^  '^  '^ 

o  w  S  ~.       - 


S  Ma©         ^^>»^^8'a  rtiS  «SwtS^OS 


£.3 


•3  fl-^       g 

a  CD  wi  v<  .^H  hi 


OOOOOciJ^a;&»U(uOoOOoOoO 


4)     V 


^  ^  p:^  pL4  PL,  ;i4 


.a 


■•^      rL    rrl, 


.SS  K4J4)       .O.SS  l')r!S_S*'.i3S       ••"  Sl4>4>4»i2 


to 


HAiitodcjS»^^WcoWWSco53^£,^to^'^SS 


s 

s 


I 


(S 


«lCO»5\OMeo500a^w^O'*^OU50'5>00>'5a^OOo^^<^'^      k 


^ 


a     ^>>2     §  «  a  if  ^B  I 


408  Convention  of  184.4. 


13  (U       I  W 


a, 


^ 


T^  o 


u 


1 

a 

2 

a  S 

0  2i.S 

a  a 

!^     M 

0   a 

^30 

M    Sj 

S2 

fc2  *. 

^w  s 

g^mn 

a  B 

;53 

^1  8 

^  >  Q 

8 

'^  a  a 

^  1  J 
Q  >  > 

o  CO        .h  *-s 

"  I            -5  S           ^     a   ^ 

^  a  o       i  S       g  >auO 

CO    'i2  >-«              CO    "Z! 

tn  >3^              CO 

**-  ,h  5         .2    c^ 

(U  i-l               G    T3 

^o  -5  g           >    rt 

S^  g    ^    C3    i          §     a5  a           a                        -                «S 
c-Sggo.-          5    I  13  ^  S  I  S  -  ^  ^  ^^  S3  S3  fc  1  I 

o:i  o^o-^.S      8  ^i^li^l  ii|||-c  ^  ill 

"   ^  §    ^    £   S 

^   I  o   "  ^   '^ 

5  •-  f^ 

6  .2  ^   H    -   a                          - 

<u  2  0  ^  ^   ^        S                 .2     .2     .2         .2 .2         5 .2 

jsSXt:  S                     oaa           aa           ^a 

2^  WO     S-n         S|§r2-s'^-s'^y'^     I'^'^^g'S'^v 

r«  K            C3           W'gSt^'bfl'S'Soa-SCoEbaaj^a'ga 


a; 


a; 

J3 


t5  j=    5? 


O  2     .    ^ 

.      ';^  ^  .2  ^ 

Ko  -^  •  S  S    fe    >^^  ^"-^"S^  a  ^":t.-i  a  2  «f^.£  ^'-5 
EZ  t^^  <SS.2^2S2a,§3^^^,§S3J3 


Data  Relative  to  the  Members  of  the  Convention.     409 


a ' 

a 

O  ,1 

s^o|gM-3    g'*;  ^  e?«3  ^g'a  e:'b^    s^sssi-sl 


s  ^  a  a  a  a  Vt,^  yfefsb9fe'Saa|aasb'»baa| 

«sacd«rtcaeS^*j3j;cfleiScoo!rto5esca«'rtcSe8',3ifl^cflcarte9 


44 

.2  ««  P 
a  2  f^ 

>  5  !2;  o  > 


et 

<«                                 C«                                        «8 

S2 

.S 

a                   J                        a 

a 

3    , 

^3           0  ^                   P 

c« 

a> 

2  ''^ 

J3>^S>,         JsS^               44          »S 

^ 

9        >. 

i 

^1 

o-b-etg^e-g « s.|5 

OS     44       gt 

•S    y  .2 

1-2  g 

.2 

<8 

a 

.9 

43  >^ 

.2 

t:a§tSti^^.S^E«t: 
o<Uo'"So<uS'^45.t:o 

.2 

rgin 
:ntu 
rgin 

>  0  PW  0  H 

"^    0   $i  A 

S  55  ^  0 

la 
0 

>  M  > 

llillllliii?5l|liil|^-ll|giei3 

T3a>'a3ii4jl3^4Jo2c9t«rt,S4ii>t5t20(u:5rtQ3posiitfci 


4IO 


Convention  of  i8/f.^. 


^    to>oo»ooo   r-svc    rN.»ovO\o    t^vovoso    fO^iO'sj-Tj-vo   t^  \ri  sn^o   «o 


cr  o 


V    u    o 

.S  .2  "So  fl 
^    o   o  o  o 

8 


C    c4 


(Q  .d 


(0   S 

33S 


e  Sb 


^  ?i  - 


rt  n 


a  piH 


^^    ^    '^    if     *>-*»*,*    ^    ^    M    .'^    M    i2i    -«    •=!     «1     «     «*     "J    -«1     «     *    -«< 


fO   rO    r*5  VO     "i    CO 
■^   ^   rj-    rr5   »0   M 


i-i    00     C<   «    <>0   NO 
^    fO    f)    »/5  VO     »0 


«f)  >o  o   »o  <y>  O 
TJ-  T  rf  m  »o  ■* 


O     O 


•SL  •:i       T-  -^    o    o 


S 
42  & 


^  4<  a 


C8 


*o  *S  'S 

>%    s  s  s  ^ 

y  -2  >^  >.  p^  y 


(0    cc    en    9 


^•5 


-    I 

o  W 

a  ^ 


£2  T*   o 


So 'So  § 


"12 


s 

Q   w   _; 

g  -.a 


:i^i.i 


^  '33 

•six* 

«  2      .CO 


/«>    eu    O    -  •  •    -3    I-, 


•^^w-s 


5  ?  I  "^ 


(U 


^ 


^  ^^  rt  rt  a^ 


fl    o 
03    C 

,  o 

8  a 

Pi  CO 


OQ 


% 


bq 


^ 


"5^    ^*   hfl  V    &. 


>>^ 


.  CO  &   o 

2  5^- 
r  a .«  •<« 


Co  V3 


•rt  S 


t  a  •§  .5  ':§  .^ 
b  2  S  5  53  ,5; 


CO  CO 


-^^f^^SS 


APPENDIX  B. 

DATA  RELATIVE  TO  THE  MEMBERS  OF  THE 
CONVENTION   OF   1846. 


tfX 


Data  Relative  to  the  Members  of  the  Convention,     413 


j3  ——-...- 


C 

o 
U 
ctf 

,    6 


(» 


O 


"< 


o  o 


I 


^>^H-3  'S-Sa-S  3  0  o 

o    i  g  §  M  §  & t  g  g  &|  "go-s  ^  a  §  ^  ^  §  ^  .0  5  I  o 

^^  »5  o  >  O  a;  >  ^  o  u  >  ^  >  O  12;  >  o  M  W  pi  W  o  ^  W  O  f 

fe    00  S 

o  -  «  a 

H     g  w  .  g  * 

O    ,g  w^'3na,„aj3gg-sj>artgc.?3A-^p«a^ 


H 


a 


o    o 


414 


Convention  of  184.6. 


2  >« 
o 


<U     O     H 


« 


CO  < 


^    cd    *^  -^    CO    . 


to  a  ^4  (i,  :3  H    vo 

s 


&5 


•2  iJ  o  iJ  a 


r^ 


1^    g    3    g  5    1;^ 


w 


s   o 
Q  U 


W  Q 


i 


■a  ^ 


S^ 


'«  2  to  §  g  I  I  O 

«    ■ 


I  M  A.  g  I  ^  I  ;:^ 
»2.  to  M  H  ^  d  w  "^ 


no 

'a. 

a 

o 
u 

♦o   5i 


(U 


.2  ^ 
o  "^ 

<n 

o    ^ 

o 

c 


u 

J3 


6  .tj 

(11     ''^ 

-  s 

o    a> 
a;    c» 

•>  :s 

:^ 

a     . 
•TO  ,c 

be  E 

~<^ 
■2  i! 

K     O 


NO 

00 


^  S     O 

CO    •  rj       H-» 

o 


W  to 

>  b: 

o  « 

o 


H 
0\ 


H     I 

o 
o 


CO 


W 


E- 

< 


to 
O 


*-.  {£ 


o 


<u 


CJ 


c   2 

O     CXi 


O  cj 

O  ^ 

o 

•£  c 

o  2 

CO  S 

g  no 

S  c 


Q4 


tn  ■< 

<  o 

W    M 


!3  .2  -d 

5     S  N 

cj   3  .2 

bo  o  .^ 
c 


h-Sffi 


^  bo 

eo     c 

^^ 


.s 

0 

CS 

^ 

4> 

'O 

Sfl 

V 

u 

V 

h^O  P 

w   o  .2   t, 
»-7  (O  Pi  »-T 


fl   S   o   S 

a 
o 


<  . 

2     g  . 

«  m  m  's 


Data  Relative  to  the  Members  of  the  Convention.     415 


4j           a 

% 

fl 

S  2=§ 

Jl 

Washingt 

Scott 

Keokuk 

§1 

3    t3 

Moin 
Moin 
uque 

s 

uque 
ton 
catin 

s 

3 

I 

b<«1 

^! 

%iin 

.a  ^ 

Hen 
Van 
Jack 

S5  8  S  3 

n   3   cs   3 

3 

3 

Hen 
Davi 
Mah 

a  h 

4->     4-) 

a        a  -t: 

!^  « 

3    3 

ca        S  a 

ysici 
rpeni 
wyer 
wyer 

u    es    cd 

It 

(i> 

(U    4J    0    (U    «  ^ 

^  !S   h 

n   ^   f»^  S   ?*>  s 

,q    CO    ca    td 
fr.  a  i-I  h4 

3s;^ 

^ 

Bj  cB  J   rt  ja  4* 
h  h4  Ah  P^  Pk  ^ 

>^ 


S        h  pi,  pm  a  i-I  h4  H^  S  S  to        fa  h4  Ah  fa  Pk  S        ^4  fa  fe  S  Ah  fa  S  Ah 


e4  oj  C8  5  jS 

—    33^3  .tJ  o» 

^      ■g'S.S  §^^^  a^  §       g  &t  fe  g  g)      .2ga^       ^.2g 
2;       >  u  o  fa  ;z5  M  M  M  ^  5      a;  >  12;  jz;  >  >      OWW       MO> 


&t> 


^3^ 


THE  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


Series  9482 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


A    001  031  412     8 


University  of  California 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

405  Hiigard  Avenue,  Los  Angeles,  CA  90024-1388 

Return  this  material  to  the  litKary 

from  which  it  was  borrowed. 


APR  1 2  zq 


01 


DUE  2  VVKS  FROM  DAIE  RECEIVED 


